That's just weird... On Nov 19, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Ruggeri <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, I don't have good news to report... doesn't seem to be a > significant change in behavior... > nginx: > Requests/sec: 5082.43 > Requests/sec: 5111.94 > Requests/sec: 5063.27 > > 2.4.6 - First UDS patch: > Requests/sec: 4733.09 > Requests/sec: 4529.49 > Requests/sec: 4573.27 > > 2.4.6 - r1511313 + new UDS patch + r1543174: > Requests/sec: 3774.41 > Requests/sec: 3878.02 > Requests/sec: 3852.34 > > Will try to look into this next week... > > -- > Daniel Ruggeri > > On 11/18/2013 6:37 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: >> On 11/18/2013 3:38 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> Can you retry with this applied: >>> >>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1543174 >> Definitely. I'll report back tomorrow so long as the universe wills >> it... but one last note.... >> >> I failed to mention in my original notes that there were two hunks that >> didn't apply cleanly to 2.4.6 - these appear to be from this change: >> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c?r1=1511313&r2=1511312&pathrev=1511313 >> ... which is in the neighborhood of what you adjusted in r1543174... but >> doesn't appear to conflict directly. >> >> I'm thinking I should also apply r1511313 to 2.4.6 as a prereq to >> r1543174 in order to remove ambiguity... I'm frankly not sure if the >> machine was performing DNS lookups during the test or not (and I have >> only given this a cursory review), but that would *definitely* account >> for a measurable slowdown. >> >> The context of what was rejected: >>> --- modules/proxy/proxy_util.c >>> +++ modules/proxy/proxy_util.c >>> @@ -2228,7 +2324,8 @@ >>> conn->port = uri->port; >>> } >>> socket_cleanup(conn); >>> - if (!worker->s->is_address_reusable || worker->s->disablereuse) { >>> + if (!(*worker->s->uds_path) && >>> + (!worker->s->is_address_reusable || >>> worker->s->disablereuse)) { >>> /* >>> * Only do a lookup if we should not reuse the backend >>> address. >>> * Otherwise we will look it up once for the worker. >>> @@ -2239,7 +2336,7 @@ >>> conn->pool); >>> } >>> } >>> - if (worker->s->is_address_reusable && !worker->s->disablereuse) { >>> + if (!(*worker->s->uds_path) && worker->s->is_address_reusable && >>> !worker->s->disablereuse) { >>> /* >>> * Looking up the backend address for the worker only makes >>> sense if >>> * we can reuse the address. >> I'll have to see what the delta with both patches applied turns out to be... >> >> -- >> Daniel Ruggeri >> >
