On 14 nov 2012, at 01:44, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Philip Martin wrote on Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 21:30:00 +0000: >> Perhaps we could start up a separate hook script process before >> allocating the large FSFS cache and then delegate the fork/exec to that >> smaller process? > > If so, let's have that daemon handle all forks we might do, not just > those related to hook scripts. (Otherwise we'll run into the same > problem as soon as we have another use-case for fork() in the server > code --- such as calling svn_sysinfo__release_name().)
Looking at it from another perspective, perhaps the cache should live within a separate daemon? That would address not only the hook script problem but also the challenges of prefork processes typically required when combining Subversion and PHP. Just a thought, /Thomas Å.