On Sep 26, 2013, at 10:20 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:25:46 -0400
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 25, 2013, at 8:07 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Before we incorporate it... can we have some sense of the impact of
>>> the optimization? So far we don't have much data to go on.
>>
>> From the orig post: "My benchmarks show decreased latency and a
>> performance boost of ~5% (on avg)"
>
> I remember that... so we are strictly speaking of response latency and
> response fulfillment metrics (as opposed to load?) 'Performance' was
> a little ambiguous, just want to confirm what we are measuring here :)
rps.
>
>>> There is talk of releasing some apr 1.5 enhancements. I'd
>>> personally favor adding skip list to apr rather than -util or
>>> httpd, since it could be useful core functionality, and 2.0 drops
>>> the distinction anyways.
>>
>> Fine, in fact, I agree that it "really" belongs in apr,
>> but it means that 2.4.7 will be required apr 1.5.
>>
>> Is the httpd PMC OK with that?
>
> I made the comment earlier that mod_ssl requiring openssl 0.9.8 in
> moving forward was fine. APR is a similar dependency. That said, we
> are maintaining binary compatibility because APR assures us that 1.5.x
> will maintain compatibility with 1.3.x/1.4.x. Plus we pick up apr unix
> domain socket support in the process for httpd.
>
> So I'm +1, I thought we did this during 2.2 (can't remember for certain)
> and throughout 2.0's lifespan we did this a number of times relative
> to apr 0.9.
>
> Others' thoughts?
>
Like I said, I think that skiplist fits better in APR; in
fact there are a few other things in httpd that would be
"better" in APR, but APR and httpd are 2 sep projects and so
we can't "force" things.
In fact, I'm adding dev@apr to the To: line :)
