yeah, I'm thinking
/*
* Figure out if our passed in proxy_conn_rec has a usable
* address cached.
*
* TODO: Handle this much better...
*
* XXX: If generic workers are ever address-reusable, we need
* to check host and port on the conn and be careful about
* spilling the cached addr from the worker.
*/
if (!conn->hostname || !worker->s->is_address_reusable ||
worker->s->disablereuse || *worker->s->uds_path) {
if (proxyname) {
conn->hostname = apr_pstrdup(conn->pool, proxyname);
conn->port = proxyport;
isn't right...
On Nov 18, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hmm... maybe a re-use issue? Let me look.
>
> On Nov 18, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I can think or see anything in the actual request handling
>> aspect that's any different from the original proposal,
>> certainly nothing that would result in any sort of
>> performance issue.
>>
>> What MPM? Have you tried w/ 2.4.6?
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> And... this is a bit discouraging, but as a comparison to the older UDS
>>> patch....
>>> 2.4.6 + original UDS patch:
>>> Requests/sec: 5347.17
>>> Requests/sec: 5102.16
>>> Requests/sec: 5074.15
>>>
>>> This is a sizable difference... Note that the current 2.4 backport
>>> proposal was applied to 2.4.6 since that is what I tested the original
>>> patch with (to keep everything apples to apples).
>>>
>>> I'll jump in to take a look at this when time is available (next week?)
>>> but would like to fish for any immediate thoughts in the mean time.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Ruggeri
>>>
>>> On 11/18/2013 1:11 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>>>> Oops - I copypasta'd the per-thread stats. Total stats for the test follow:
>>>> httpd:
>>>> Requests/sec: 4633.17
>>>> Requests/sec: 4664.49
>>>> Requests/sec: 4657.63
>>>>
>>>> nginx:
>>>> Requests/sec: 5701.16
>>>> Requests/sec: 5798.08
>>>> Requests/sec: 5584.60
>>>
>>
>
