On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Thomas Åkesson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > For non-obvious reasons listed at the end of http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2012-11/0148.shtml, this is not trivial to do. I may give it a try in 1.9 but there might be lock cleanup edge cases that simply can't be handled in a portable way. -- Stefan^2. -- Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads: * http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download *
