logdaemon and shutdown or reconfigure?
Was reading the new logfile stuff, and logfileClose() in combination with logfileFlush() looks dangerous. To me it looks like the last log segment is lost. Regards Henrik signature.asc Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
Re: logdaemon and shutdown or reconfigure?
mån 2006-08-21 klockan 12:50 +0200 skrev Henrik Nordstrom: Was reading the new logfile stuff, and logfileClose() in combination with logfileFlush() looks dangerous. To me it looks like the last log segment is lost. Nevermind that. Was mixing up the logfileFlush and logfileFlushEvent functions.. Regards Henrik signature.asc Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
EventLoop shutdown procedure..
I'd like to make the shutdown procedure async as well - allowing things like swap log writing to use calls elsewhere in the codebase that are async - like the disk engines. Heres my proposed api: - on EventLoop you can call addShutdownEvent(callback, callbackdata); - this builds up a vector of pending shutdown callbacks. - when the event loop detects its time to stop - i.e. because its had stop() called, or because its gone idle, it invokes the last registered callback. This has a signature like 'void SHUTDOWNEVENT(callback, callbackdata);'. The event loop will invoke it with the loop as the callback data - so when that routine completes, the loop will move onto the next shutdown event and so on. - When the last shutdown event returns, the loop will return to the caller of run(). This has a couple of ramifications: - we'll need to teach various layers like comms that there core can be shutdown *while* the event loop is still running - but this is conceptually quite easy IMO. - we'll have a mismatch between some parts of reconfigure and this approach, for a but - but thats reasonably easy to deal with in the short term. Long term, if reconfigure becomes async itself it will be non problematic. Rob -- GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Another COSS patch
- Original Message - From: Steven Wilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Guido Serassio' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Adrian Chadd' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: squid-dev@squid-cache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:25 AM Subject: RE: Another COSS patch What would be good now is a configuration guide for COSS just so people have some idea of how to configure, use, troubleshoot and tune it. COSS has quite a lot more knobs now than it did when i inherited it and its bound to generate a lot of questions once people realise it performs better than UFS. A wiki page :-) I'll give it a shot. As promised, I've added a WIKI page in the FAQ section. Steven
Re: FAQ TOC
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 17:04 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: mån 2006-08-21 klockan 15:23 +0200 skrev Kinkie: The expanded TOC is now available as http://wiki.squid-cache.org/SquidFaq/FaqIndex Looks good. Can you move that up to http://wiki.squid-cache.org/SquidFaq please? The collapsed TOC isn't that useful, and having two pages which needs to be maintained just asks for trouble later on.. I'm not totally convined about doing this because - the full index is pretty long and cluttered, and it's just a click away anyway - the hand-built index allows for some concise summary about what's in the pages - the full index can be fully self-updateable if we accept the drawback that it will sort pages by page name rather than by faq section order. - I tend to keep the wiki on a short leash (thanks to RecentChanges and a blanket page-change notification), mostly out of fear of wiki spam. As an example today Steven Wilton added a section dealing specifically with COSS, without updating the index (Steven, thanks for contributing, and shame on you for not giving your work proper visibility :). I updated both indexes within 10 minutes of the faq page being added. This said, I'm not opposing the idea; I'd just like to get more reasons to do it :) Kinkie
Re: FAQ TOC
mån 2006-08-21 klockan 17:23 +0200 skrev Kinkie: This said, I'm not opposing the idea; I'd just like to get more reasons to do it :) The main reason is that the FAQ is not a document, it's a collection of very many small notes, loosely coupled together in sections to try to make some order out of them. Very often it is not at all obvious in which section an answer to a given question is to be found. The summary currently missing from the expanded index is mainly a matter of moving it there. Preferably automated (see below) Having it fully automated would be great, and the section summary should be snarfed from the subsection page title I think. The FAQ does not really have a concise order of the chapters. It's a bag of things. Ideally I would see the chapters as category indexes to the questions, with a single question belonging to N categories. But that's probably outside what can be done nicely in a wiki. Regards Henrik signature.asc Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
Re: Another COSS patch
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006, Steven Wilton wrote: As promised, I've added a WIKI page in the FAQ section. Nice, thanks! Adrian
