Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > On 10/29/2006 04:39 PM, Davi Arnaut wrote: >> Graham Leggett wrote: >> >>> Davi Arnaut wrote: >>> >>> >>>> . Problem: >>> You have described two separate problems below. >> >> No, and it's seems you are deeply confused on what buckets and brigades >> represent. You already committed what ? four fixes to the same problem ? >> Each time we point your wrong assumptions you came up with yet another >> bogus fix. Could you please stop for a moment and listen ? >> >> IMHO, you haven't presented any acceptable fix and you keep trying to >> fix things by your self without discussing on the list first. And more >> important, discussing on the list means that you have to hear other >> people comments. >> >> > >>> The solution was to pass the output filter through the save_body() hook, >>> and let the save_body() code decide for itself when the best time is to >>> write the bucket(s) to the network. >>> >>> For example in the disk cache, the apr_bucket_read() loop will read >>> chunks of the 4.7GB file 4MB at a time. This chunk will be cached, and >>> then this chuck will be written to the network, then cleanup up. Rinse >>> repeat. >>> >>> Previously, save_body() was expected to save all 4.7GB to the cache, and >>> then only write the first byte to the network possibly minutes later. >>> >>> If a filter was present before cache that for any reason converted file >>> buckets into heap buckets (for example mod_deflate), then save_body() >>> would try and store 4.7GB of heap buckets in RAM to pass to the network >>> later, and boom. >> >> You just described what I've said with another words. Listen if you >> don't change a bit your attitude I won't continue arguing with you, it's >> pointless. > > I do not really like the way the discussion goes here. If I remember myself > correctly we had a very similar discussion between you and Graham several > month ago regarding the need for mod_cache to be RFC compliant.
Yes, but it was about the generic cache architecture. > It may be that > we circle around the same things again and again and sometimes this may be > even > unproductive. But this way for sure we do not get anything (and the past > proved it) > productive out of this. As we had this in the past I try to throw a flag very > early > to avoid wasting time for everybody with the back and forth following such > things. > If you are frustrated by Grahams responses and the situation please try to > express > this a little different and less personalized. I'm not frustrated, I just wanted to tell him what I thought. I think he is a smart guy and works hard on the issues but we could achieve much more by collaborating constructively in a sane manner (step by step). -- Davi Arnaut
