thanx!
i wanna write a cache library and come up with 2 different techniques to
allocate cache memory
1) use calloc & free for each node
2) create a subpool in pconf for each node
which will be better from performance point of
view?
We have already removed your email address from our database. Thank you and have a
wonderful day.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> pquerna 2004/07/10 00:47:23
>
> Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH CHANGES STATUS
>modules/aaa Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH mod_auth_digest.c
> Log:
> Backport of AuthDigestEnableQueryStringHack
> Needs a doc update to explain what it do
> Which in turn means that every filter, now blissfully unaware of ranges,
> is forced to generate a full response for each byterange request. In the
> case of a downloaded ISO (for example), this means a significant amount
> of data (many hundreds of MB) is being processed by filters on each
> re
Graham Leggett wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
I've not tested 2.0.51-dev yet -- as 2.0.50 just came out a short
while ago...
There was a big change to the LDAP stuff that was landed after 2.0.50
shipped, there were questions about whether an MMN bump was needed,
thus the holdoff till v2.0.51.
I do no
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 08:57:16AM -0600, Jean-Jacques Clar wrote:
> >> 3- overload detach field from cgi_exec_info_t in 2.0 to make sure
> >> no bump are needed, no backport entry needed in that case.
>
> >Not sure what you mean there, any proposed backport to the
> >APACHE_2_0_BRANCH for httpd n
Jess Holle wrote:
I've not tested 2.0.51-dev yet -- as 2.0.50 just came out a short while
ago...
There was a big change to the LDAP stuff that was landed after 2.0.50
shipped, there were questions about whether an MMN bump was needed, thus
the holdoff till v2.0.51.
I do not believe this particu
>> 3- overload detach field from cgi_exec_info_t in 2.0 to make sure no bump are needed,>> no backport entry needed in that case.>Not sure what you mean there, any proposed backport to the>APACHE_2_0_BRANCH for httpd needs to be added to STATUS following the>normal procedure.The change done in 2.
Graham Leggett wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
Bug 24801 is still present in Apache 2.0.50. [See my additional
notes in the report.]
And the stuff that landed in v2.0.51-dev? There is an overhaul of
locking in there that has potentially fixed a lot of problems.
I've not tested 2.0.51-dev yet -- as 2.0.
Nick Kew wrote:
That will not always be practicable. mod_proxy should be configurable
to pass byteranges headers straight through to the backend or strip them
and assume the proxy will handle the ranges.
Byte ranges are a part of HTTP/1.1, and mod_proxy claims to be an
HTTP/1.1 proxy. mod_proxy s
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
> > at the moment when a byterange request goes to a dynamic module, the
> > dynamic module can not use any tricks to only serve the bytes requested,
> > it *HAS* to serve the entire content up as buckets.
>
> In theory, if mod_proxy (for example) gets a
Sadaf Alvi wrote:
i saw util_ldap_cache to know from which pool it is allocating cache
memory. i wonder to know that it is using util_ldap_cache_mgr which in
turn using calloc & free internally.
why it is not using pconf pool to allocate cache memory?? is there
any memory or performance issue ??
T
i saw
util_ldap_cache to know from which pool it is allocating cachememory. i
wonder to know that it is using util_ldap_cache_mgr which inturn using
calloc & free internally.why it is not using pconf pool to
allocate cache memory?? is thereany memory or performance issue
??
Ian Holsman wrote:
ok, now before I start this let me say one thing, this is not for *ALL*
requests, it will only work for ones which don't have content-length
modifiable filters (like gzip) applied to the request, and it would be
left to the webserver admin to figure out what they were, and if y
14 matches
Mail list logo
