> On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 12:11:09PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote: > > I want to break something: binary compatibility for the pool API. > > > > This has been on my list for a long time, but I haven't yet had > > time to implement it. > > > > What I'm thinking of is the following: > > > > * Preface the apr_pool_t structure with a set of function > > pointers for the pool's "methods": alloc, free, destroy, > > create subpool, etc. > > Sounds like SMS. We could never overcome speed limitations and we > always seemed to place blame on the function pointers as the reason > why the SMS performance wasn't as good as pools. > > I'd want to see performance metrics saying that we aren't going to > see a massive performance decrease with this. -- justin >
Yes, please, we need some performance measurements. I've been doing some profiling of Apache 2.0 on AIX and even with mod_mem_cache, we still serve static files with keep-alive at about half the rate of iPlanet. The sad thing is I don't see any single smoking guns. Just lots of little stuff everywhere. Bill
