Guys,
I'm going to try and add a configure option to allow us to add Electric Fence
support to apache, but will it be useful for APR as well? It's a simple
enough patch as I'm not planning on much autodetection, simply having the user
identify where it is and have a couple of the more common
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 08:33:54AM +0100, David Reid wrote:
I'd be interested to know of other tools that people use that are available
for others here * on the list to use improving the code. So far when pools
insure-lite may help _if_ you use the following trick.
insure-lite is availabe in
Ian Holsman wrote:
On 05 Jul 2001 22:59:25 +0100, David Reid wrote:
OK, to comment on this prior to the patch being posted...
I have SMS running as pools and the implementation I have manages to run the
server at 80% of the speed of pools. This is with no changes to the httpd
code except using
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Brian Pane wrote:
This morning, I instrumented the latest httpd-2.0 souce and found that
it's spending 41% of its CPU time in usr mode and 59% in sys when
delivering a 50KB, non-server-parsed file (on Linux, using sendfile).
For server-parsed requests, I've seen ratios as
This implements a hash table using shared memory.
Limitations:
* doesn't have a freelist, so deletes aren't reclaimed
* and can't expand it's size (dont know how to implement this with
current shared memory system)
* no locking (yet)
It is intended for use in modules having a large
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 09:01:35PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
This implements a hash table using shared memory.
Limitations:
* doesn't have a freelist, so deletes aren't reclaimed
* and can't expand it's size (dont know how to implement this with
current shared memory system)
*
I dislike this. This duplicates a lot of logic that we already have in
regular hash files. The whole point of the SMS logic is to make this sort
of thing not necessary anymore. With SMS, we just pass a shared pool into
the apr_make_hash function, and we get a hash table in shared memory.
I
This implements a hash table using shared memory.
Limitations:
* doesn't have a freelist, so deletes aren't reclaimed
* and can't expand it's size (dont know how to implement this with
current shared
memory system)
To the best of my knowledge, you cannot expand a shared memory
On 04 Jul 2001 21:16:56 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 09:01:35PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
This implements a hash table using shared memory.
Limitations:
* doesn't have a freelist, so deletes aren't reclaimed
* and can't expand it's size (dont know how to
On 5 Jul 2001, Ian Holsman wrote:
On 04 Jul 2001 21:16:56 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 09:01:35PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
This implements a hash table using shared memory.
Limitations:
* doesn't have a freelist, so deletes aren't reclaimed
* and
oops...forgot the list.
On 05 Jul 2001 09:14:03 -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
On 05 Jul 2001 08:46:05 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5 Jul 2001, Ian Holsman wrote:
On 04 Jul 2001 21:16:56 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 09:01:35PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
On 05 Jul 2001 09:14:03 -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
On 05 Jul 2001 08:46:05 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5 Jul 2001, Ian Holsman wrote:
On 04 Jul 2001 21:16:56 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 09:01:35PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
This implements
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 08:36:24AM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
In the conversations I have seen SMS was always talked about post 2.0
Release.
Is this still the case?
Nah. I think SMS is getting very close to being ready for more people
to play with. In order to solve some problems, we're
On 05 Jul 2001 22:59:25 +0100, David Reid wrote:
OK, to comment on this prior to the patch being posted...
I have SMS running as pools and the implementation I have manages to run the
server at 80% of the speed of pools. This is with no changes to the httpd
code except using --enable-sms on
14 matches
Mail list logo
