Re: Intent to TR 2.4.7
Okey dokey... I plan to TR 2.4.7 this Tuesday (tomorrow). This allows 72 hours of voting and pushing to mirrors over the weekend. On Nov 13, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Now that APR 1.5 is soon-to-be released, we are good for a release of 2.4.7. I propose a TR next week (I'll RM) and would request that people look thru STATUS for some remaining backports.
Re: Intent to TR 2.4.7
*Finally* ran this through my test cases with three poundings with wrk. Here are the requests/sec: httpd (2.4 + proposed UDS patch) Req/Sec 147.34 28.89 282.00 71.38% Req/Sec 147.48 27.18 250.00 67.75% Req/Sec 147.87 28.17 239.00 70.94% nginx Req/Sec 180.99 27.81 311.00 77.92% Req/Sec 183.46 32.59 369.00 72.44% Req/Sec 176.81 28.18 325.00 71.99% Three samples with 30 second tests is far from scientific, but I think illustrates general timings (and, more importantly, that it works!). -- Daniel Ruggeri On 11/14/2013 9:56 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: What the heck. STATUS is updated w/ the backport proposal and the patch... On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:46 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: I'd like to yes, but I don't want to push 2.4.7 out much longer. There are other things in STATUS, like the event patches which have been running on ASF infra for quite awhile, that I'd like to see in 2.4.7 when we ship. We can save UDS for 2.4.8 and make that a(nother) reason for people to upgrade. On Nov 13, 2013, at 8:27 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote: On 11/13/2013 10:39 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Now that APR 1.5 is soon-to-be released, we are good for a release of 2.4.7. I propose a TR next week (I'll RM) and would request that people look thru STATUS for some remaining backports. Are you hoping to push for UDS in 2.4.7? Seems like a great feature... (yes, I'm guilty in not testing out the latest trunk patches and providing feedback - I had planned to do that last week... and this week... and probably next week) -- Daniel Ruggeri
Re: Intent to TR 2.4.7
Oops - I copypasta'd the per-thread stats. Total stats for the test follow: httpd: Requests/sec: 4633.17 Requests/sec: 4664.49 Requests/sec: 4657.63 nginx: Requests/sec: 5701.16 Requests/sec: 5798.08 Requests/sec: 5584.60 -- Daniel Ruggeri On 11/18/2013 1:09 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: httpd (2.4 + proposed UDS patch) Req/Sec 147.34 28.89 282.00 71.38% Req/Sec 147.48 27.18 250.00 67.75% Req/Sec 147.87 28.17 239.00 70.94% nginx Req/Sec 180.99 27.81 311.00 77.92% Req/Sec 183.46 32.59 369.00 72.44% Req/Sec 176.81 28.18 325.00 71.99%
Re: Intent to TR 2.4.7
And... this is a bit discouraging, but as a comparison to the older UDS patch 2.4.6 + original UDS patch: Requests/sec: 5347.17 Requests/sec: 5102.16 Requests/sec: 5074.15 This is a sizable difference... Note that the current 2.4 backport proposal was applied to 2.4.6 since that is what I tested the original patch with (to keep everything apples to apples). I'll jump in to take a look at this when time is available (next week?) but would like to fish for any immediate thoughts in the mean time. -- Daniel Ruggeri On 11/18/2013 1:11 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: Oops - I copypasta'd the per-thread stats. Total stats for the test follow: httpd: Requests/sec: 4633.17 Requests/sec: 4664.49 Requests/sec: 4657.63 nginx: Requests/sec: 5701.16 Requests/sec: 5798.08 Requests/sec: 5584.60
Re: Intent to TR 2.4.7
I can think or see anything in the actual request handling aspect that's any different from the original proposal, certainly nothing that would result in any sort of performance issue. What MPM? Have you tried w/ 2.4.6? On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote: And... this is a bit discouraging, but as a comparison to the older UDS patch 2.4.6 + original UDS patch: Requests/sec: 5347.17 Requests/sec: 5102.16 Requests/sec: 5074.15 This is a sizable difference... Note that the current 2.4 backport proposal was applied to 2.4.6 since that is what I tested the original patch with (to keep everything apples to apples). I'll jump in to take a look at this when time is available (next week?) but would like to fish for any immediate thoughts in the mean time. -- Daniel Ruggeri On 11/18/2013 1:11 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: Oops - I copypasta'd the per-thread stats. Total stats for the test follow: httpd: Requests/sec: 4633.17 Requests/sec: 4664.49 Requests/sec: 4657.63 nginx: Requests/sec: 5701.16 Requests/sec: 5798.08 Requests/sec: 5584.60
Re: Intent to TR 2.4.7
Hmm... maybe a re-use issue? Let me look. On Nov 18, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: I can think or see anything in the actual request handling aspect that's any different from the original proposal, certainly nothing that would result in any sort of performance issue. What MPM? Have you tried w/ 2.4.6? On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote: And... this is a bit discouraging, but as a comparison to the older UDS patch 2.4.6 + original UDS patch: Requests/sec: 5347.17 Requests/sec: 5102.16 Requests/sec: 5074.15 This is a sizable difference... Note that the current 2.4 backport proposal was applied to 2.4.6 since that is what I tested the original patch with (to keep everything apples to apples). I'll jump in to take a look at this when time is available (next week?) but would like to fish for any immediate thoughts in the mean time. -- Daniel Ruggeri On 11/18/2013 1:11 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: Oops - I copypasta'd the per-thread stats. Total stats for the test follow: httpd: Requests/sec: 4633.17 Requests/sec: 4664.49 Requests/sec: 4657.63 nginx: Requests/sec: 5701.16 Requests/sec: 5798.08 Requests/sec: 5584.60
Re: Intent to TR 2.4.7
yeah, I'm thinking
/*
* Figure out if our passed in proxy_conn_rec has a usable
* address cached.
*
* TODO: Handle this much better...
*
* XXX: If generic workers are ever address-reusable, we need
* to check host and port on the conn and be careful about
* spilling the cached addr from the worker.
*/
if (!conn-hostname || !worker-s-is_address_reusable ||
worker-s-disablereuse || *worker-s-uds_path) {
if (proxyname) {
conn-hostname = apr_pstrdup(conn-pool, proxyname);
conn-port = proxyport;
isn't right...
On Nov 18, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Hmm... maybe a re-use issue? Let me look.
On Nov 18, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I can think or see anything in the actual request handling
aspect that's any different from the original proposal,
certainly nothing that would result in any sort of
performance issue.
What MPM? Have you tried w/ 2.4.6?
On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote:
And... this is a bit discouraging, but as a comparison to the older UDS
patch
2.4.6 + original UDS patch:
Requests/sec: 5347.17
Requests/sec: 5102.16
Requests/sec: 5074.15
This is a sizable difference... Note that the current 2.4 backport
proposal was applied to 2.4.6 since that is what I tested the original
patch with (to keep everything apples to apples).
I'll jump in to take a look at this when time is available (next week?)
but would like to fish for any immediate thoughts in the mean time.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
On 11/18/2013 1:11 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
Oops - I copypasta'd the per-thread stats. Total stats for the test follow:
httpd:
Requests/sec: 4633.17
Requests/sec: 4664.49
Requests/sec: 4657.63
nginx:
Requests/sec: 5701.16
Requests/sec: 5798.08
Requests/sec: 5584.60
Re: Intent to TR 2.4.7
Am 13.11.2013 17:39, schrieb Jim Jagielski: Now that APR 1.5 is soon-to-be released, we are good for a release of 2.4.7. I propose a TR next week (I'll RM) and would request that people look thru STATUS for some remaining backports is this one considered to be included in 2.4.7 https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49559#c13 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Intent to TR 2.4.7
I'd like to yes, but I don't want to push 2.4.7 out much longer. There are other things in STATUS, like the event patches which have been running on ASF infra for quite awhile, that I'd like to see in 2.4.7 when we ship. We can save UDS for 2.4.8 and make that a(nother) reason for people to upgrade. On Nov 13, 2013, at 8:27 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote: On 11/13/2013 10:39 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Now that APR 1.5 is soon-to-be released, we are good for a release of 2.4.7. I propose a TR next week (I'll RM) and would request that people look thru STATUS for some remaining backports. Are you hoping to push for UDS in 2.4.7? Seems like a great feature... (yes, I'm guilty in not testing out the latest trunk patches and providing feedback - I had planned to do that last week... and this week... and probably next week) -- Daniel Ruggeri
Re: Intent to TR 2.4.7
What the heck. STATUS is updated w/ the backport proposal and the patch... On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:46 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: I'd like to yes, but I don't want to push 2.4.7 out much longer. There are other things in STATUS, like the event patches which have been running on ASF infra for quite awhile, that I'd like to see in 2.4.7 when we ship. We can save UDS for 2.4.8 and make that a(nother) reason for people to upgrade. On Nov 13, 2013, at 8:27 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote: On 11/13/2013 10:39 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Now that APR 1.5 is soon-to-be released, we are good for a release of 2.4.7. I propose a TR next week (I'll RM) and would request that people look thru STATUS for some remaining backports. Are you hoping to push for UDS in 2.4.7? Seems like a great feature... (yes, I'm guilty in not testing out the latest trunk patches and providing feedback - I had planned to do that last week... and this week... and probably next week) -- Daniel Ruggeri
Intent to TR 2.4.7
Now that APR 1.5 is soon-to-be released, we are good for a release of 2.4.7. I propose a TR next week (I'll RM) and would request that people look thru STATUS for some remaining backports.
Re: Intent to TR 2.4.7
On 11/13/2013 10:39 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Now that APR 1.5 is soon-to-be released, we are good for a release of 2.4.7. I propose a TR next week (I'll RM) and would request that people look thru STATUS for some remaining backports. Are you hoping to push for UDS in 2.4.7? Seems like a great feature... (yes, I'm guilty in not testing out the latest trunk patches and providing feedback - I had planned to do that last week... and this week... and probably next week) -- Daniel Ruggeri
