On Friday 12 May 2006 01:58, Robert Watson wrote: > On Thu, 11 May 2006, Scott Long wrote: > >> So I guess the real question is: do we want to merge the UNIX domain > >> socket locking work? The MySQL gains sound good, the performance drop > >> under very high load seems problematic, and there are more general > >> questions about performance with other workloads. > >> > >> Maintaining this patch for a month or so is no problem, but as the tree > >> changes it will get harder. > > > > The only thing I'm afraid of is that it'll get pushed onto the > > back-burner once it's in CVS, and we'll have a mad scramble to fix it > > when it's time for 7.0. That's not a show-stopper for it going in, as > > there are also numerous benefits. It's just something that needs to be > > tracked and worked on. > > I should be able to support/improve UNIX domain sockets moving forward > without a problem -- the maintenance issue is maintaining it in P4 > indefinitely, not in the tree indefinitely, as the patch basically touches > every line in the file, so any change in the vendor branch (FreeBSD CVS) > will put the entire file into conflict. To be specific: I'll track and own > this, but want to avoid having it in P4 indefinitely, because it will get > stale :-). > > Robert N M Watson
Your patch makes other bottlenecks more visible than before, for example, file descriptor locking, but it is not a problem of your patch, so I think it is fine to commit it. David Xu _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
