Will do! THX!
> On Jun 2, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Jim Riggs wrote:
>
>> On 2 Jun 2017, at 07:20, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 1, 2017, at 1:29 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> Regardless, even worst case, we are looking at what, iterating 6 pointers
>>> instead of 3 or 10 instead of 5? We proba
> On 2 Jun 2017, at 07:20, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> On Jun 1, 2017, at 1:29 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
>>
>> Regardless, even worst case, we are looking at what, iterating 6 pointers
>> instead of 3 or 10 instead of 5? We probably have some lower hanging fruit
>> across the request lifecycle code
On Jun 1, 2017, at 1:29 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:Regardless, even worst case, we are looking at what, iterating 6 pointers instead of 3 or 10 instead of 5? We probably have some lower hanging fruit across the request lifecycle code to increase performance than saving some arithmetic on a handful of str
> On Jun 1, 2017, at 1:29 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
>
>
> Regardless, even worst case, we are looking at what, iterating 6 pointers
> instead of 3 or 10 instead of 5? We probably have some lower hanging fruit
> across the request lifecycle code to increase performance than saving some
> arithmeti
> On Jun 1, 2017, at 1:29 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
>
>
> Regardless, even worst case, we are looking at what, iterating 6 pointers
> instead of 3 or 10 instead of 5? We probably have some lower hanging fruit
> across the request lifecycle code to increase performance than saving some
> arithmeti
> On 1 Jun 2017, at 17:15, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
>>> On 1 Jun 2017, at 15:25, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Yann Ylavic
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Jim Riggs
wrote:
>> On 1 Jun 2017,
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
>> On 1 Jun 2017, at 15:25, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Yann Ylavic
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Jim Riggs
>>> wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2017, at 07:55, Jim Jagielski
> wrote: 2. I understand the l
> On 1 Jun 2017, at 15:25, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
On 1 Jun 2017, at 07:55, Jim Jagielski wrote:
2. I understand the logic behind creating the arrays, but doesn't
this incre
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
>>> On 1 Jun 2017, at 07:55, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> I really like where this is going... I just have a few questions:
>>>
>>> 1. The style, esp with array usage is different; eg APR_ARRAY
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
>> On 1 Jun 2017, at 07:55, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> I really like where this is going... I just have a few questions:
>>
>> 1. The style, esp with array usage is different; eg APR_ARRAY_PUSH
>> and APR_ARRAY_IDX... any particular reason why?
>
>
> On 1 Jun 2017, at 07:55, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> I really like where this is going... I just have a few questions:
>
> 1. The style, esp with array usage is different; eg APR_ARRAY_PUSH
> and APR_ARRAY_IDX... any particular reason why?
Well, we don't seem to be entirely consistent with
I really like where this is going... I just have a few questions:
1. The style, esp with array usage is different; eg APR_ARRAY_PUSH
and APR_ARRAY_IDX... any particular reason why?
2. I understand the logic behind creating the arrays, but doesn't
this increase the overhead. We go th
> On 23 May 2017, at 09:16, Jim Riggs wrote:
>
>> On 18 May 2017, at 13:22, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>
>> Am 18.05.2017 um 19:46 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> Based on feedback from various sessions:
>>>
>>> o A new-kind of "hot standby" in mod_proxy which kicks
>>> in whenever a worker moves out of
On 23 May 2017, at 3:29 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
>>> Does that differ from "CacheQuickHandler OFF"?
>
>
> This one is a bit quirky and requires some investigation to see the edge
> cases. There appear to be some situations where Require directives with
> `CacheQuickHandler off' do not always take
> Am 23.05.2017 um 17:44 schrieb Jacob Champion :
>
> On 05/18/2017 10:46 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Based on feedback from various sessions:
>
> Thanks for the list, Jim!
>
>> o Warn if the trailing '/'s don't match in ProxyPass/Reverse
>> directives (eg: ProxyPass /foo http://www.examp
On 05/18/2017 10:46 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Based on feedback from various sessions:
Thanks for the list, Jim!
o Warn if the trailing '/'s don't match in ProxyPass/Reverse
directives (eg: ProxyPass /foo http://www.example.com/foo/ )
This one is easy enough to put into the directive
> On 18 May 2017, at 12:46, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Based on feedback from various sessions:
>
> o A new-kind of "hot standby" in mod_proxy which kicks
>in whenever a worker moves out of the pool (ie, doesn't
>wait until all workers are out)... ala a redundant
>hard drive.
>
> o
> On 18 May 2017, at 13:22, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Am 18.05.2017 um 19:46 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Based on feedback from various sessions:
>>
>> o A new-kind of "hot standby" in mod_proxy which kicks
>> in whenever a worker moves out of the pool (ie, doesn't
>> wait until all workers are o
> On 22 May 2017, at 06:45, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> I'll let Jim Riggs answer that...it came up during his mod_cache
> talk.
>> On May 18, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
o Look into AAA and mod_cache; eg: "bolt in at the en
I'll let Jim Riggs answer that...it came up during his mod_cache
talk.
> On May 18, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>> o Look into AAA and mod_cache; eg: "bolt in at the end"
>
> Does that differ from "CacheQuickHandler OFF"?
>
>
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> o Look into AAA and mod_cache; eg: "bolt in at the end"
Does that differ from "CacheQuickHandler OFF"?
--
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com
Thanks for the list.
One remark inline ...
Am 18.05.2017 um 19:46 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
Based on feedback from various sessions:
o A new-kind of "hot standby" in mod_proxy which kicks
in whenever a worker moves out of the pool (ie, doesn't
wait until all workers are out)... ala a re
Based on feedback from various sessions:
o A new-kind of "hot standby" in mod_proxy which kicks
in whenever a worker moves out of the pool (ie, doesn't
wait until all workers are out)... ala a redundant
hard drive.
o Look into AAA and mod_cache; eg: "bolt in at the end"
o HTTP/
23 matches
Mail list logo