We are very close... I believe wrowe has some somewhat trivial reservations about it, but we are awaiting 1 more vote.
Someone want to address wrowes concerns on trunk and patch the patch (stuff like naming)? I may have time next week. > On May 14, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Yingqi, > > 2 votes already (on 3), it makes its way ;) > > Regards, > Yann. > > > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Lu, Yingqi <yingqi...@intel.com> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I just want to check if anyone gets chances to check the SO_REUSEPORT patch? >> Any feedback? >> >> Thanks, >> Yingqi >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lu, Yingqi [mailto:yingqi...@intel.com] >> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 8:58 AM >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org >> Subject: RE: SO_REUSEPORT >> >> Hi Christophe, Jim and Yann, >> >> Thank you very much for your consideration of putting SO_REUSEPORT patch in >> the 2.4 stable release. >> >> I am also very happy that you find the white paper :-) All the most recent >> testing results are included in the white paper. Also, we have tested the >> (graceful) restart on the patch (previously, there was a bug.), it should be >> fine now. Please test it to confirm. >> >> Please let me know if you need anything else. Your help is appreciated. >> >> Thanks, >> Yingqi >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic....@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 5:02 AM >> To: httpd >> Subject: Re: SO_REUSEPORT >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Christophe JAILLET >> <christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: >>> >>> Maybe, 2.4.14 could focus on reviewing/merging this patch and >>> associated performance improvement? >>> To help adoption, maybe an ASF server could be upgraded with a >>> SO_REUSEPORT patched version of Apache to have our own measurements >>> and see how it scales in a real world application. >> >> I did some testing with an injector at the time of the proposal (on a 2.2.x >> version of the patch, so mainly with worker), and can confirm that it really >> scales much better. >> Where httpd without SO_REUSEPORT stops accepting/handling connections, it >> continues to shine with the option/buckets enabled. >> (I don't have the numbers for now, need to search deeper, btw the ones from >> Intel are probably more of interest...) >> >> So regarding the upgrade on infra, the difference may not be obvious if the >> tested machine is not "at the limits". >> >> One thing that probably is worth testing is (graceful) restarts, though. >> >> Regards, >> Yann.
