Nope... nevermind. You said it happened w/ 2.4.6 so that's moot. On Nov 19, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> OK... the DNS lookup code seems to have changed between 2.4.6 and 2.4.7: > > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1511313 > > So I'm wondering if there's something there. > > On Nov 19, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> That's just weird... >> >> On Nov 19, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Ruggeri <drugg...@primary.net> 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 >>>> >>> >> >
