Re: apache 1.3.29 & apache 2.0.X pool problems and analysis

2004-03-12 Thread Sander Striker
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 04:21, Bojan Smojver wrote: > Quoting Mark Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: FYI, I'll only speak for APR/Apache 2.0. 1.3 has a somewhat different implementation. > > Check out this further pool test, > [...] > > apr_pool_create_ex(&subp1, p, fun, NULL); > > apr_pool_creat

Re: apache 1.3.29 & apache 2.0.X pool problems and analysis

2004-03-11 Thread Bojan Smojver
Quoting Mark Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Check out this further pool test, > > > Using apache 2.0.48 > > I defined tenbyte_string as the > constant string "0123456789" > which is 10 bytes long. This would probably be 11 bytes, plus maybe a few extra for alignment. Not a big difference probably

apache 1.3.29 & apache 2.0.X pool problems and analysis

2004-03-11 Thread Mark Rowe
Check out this further pool test, Using apache 2.0.48 I defined tenbyte_string as the constant string "0123456789" which is 10 bytes long. Here is a test where I used apr_pstrcat( ... ) to in a loop 10,000 iterations so the resulting string should only take up 10 * 10,000 = 100,000 bytes. It took