Re: Paper to think about...

2016-06-15 Thread Dridi Boukelmoune
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Kacper Wysocki wrote: > Only a handful params actually need changing from site to site. > There are a dusin params that I've neer seen anyone use to any good > effect.. in particular, most of the ones labeled "NB: We do not know > yet if it is a good idea to change

Re: Paper to think about...

2016-06-15 Thread Nils Goroll
On 15/06/16 09:48, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > varnish-cli could be changed so that experimental params > don't show up by default with `param.show -l`, requiring a new flag like -x > for > instance. I like this idea. So we'd have - user tunables - expert tunables - param.show: show user tun

Re: Paper to think about...

2016-06-15 Thread Guillaume Quintard
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Nils Goroll wrote: > On 15/06/16 09:48, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > varnish-cli could be changed so that experimental params > > don't show up by default with `param.show -l`, requiring a new flag like > -x for > > instance. > > People tend to think the expert s

Re: Paper to think about...

2016-06-15 Thread Geoff Simmons
On 15/06/16 10:50, Guillaume Quintard wrote: > > On 15/06/16 09:48, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > varnish-cli could be changed so that experimental params > > don't show up by default with `param.show -l`, requiring a new flag > like -x for > > instance. > > People tend to think t

Tweakable madvise

2016-06-15 Thread Guillaume Quintard
I re-read some performance concerns about the file storage and remembered that I said I'd send a patch, probably a year ago. So here we go. The only thing it does is exposing the madvise parameter to the user, in practice, it helps performance for big objects and/or rotational disk when using MADV

Re: Paper to think about...

2016-06-15 Thread Per Buer
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Geoff Simmons wrote: > I vote for the classification into expert- and non-expert-level params, > and very strongly against removing any of them for no other reason than > having fewer of them. > How do you feel about making a few more of them compile time optio

Re: Paper to think about...

2016-06-15 Thread Dridi Boukelmoune
>> I vote for the classification into expert- and non-expert-level params, >> and very strongly against removing any of them for no other reason than >> having fewer of them. > > > How do you feel about making a few more of them compile time options? This > would reduce the apparent number of para