Eli Marmor wrote:
>
> Being slashdotted, will be also a good heavy-load test for daedalus,
> which runs 2.0.32... ;-)
>
Except that, IIRC, daedalis is running prefork exclusively. Has any
large site utilized worker?
--
=
On 16 Feb 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> It is easy to prevent people from doing the same thing without
> changing the generated code (move the macro to core.c, rename it to
> ONLY_LAME_CODE_NEEDS_TO_REMOVE_ZERO_LENGTH_BUCKETS(), whatever floats
> your boat). Showstopper? No, IMHO. Something to c
Cliff Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
>
> > I have one concern about 2.0.32 as a GA candidate.
> > In order to fix the last of the performance problems
> > in 2.0.x, we'll need to incorporate free lists for
> > buckets (the stuff that Cliff is working
Ryan Bloom wrote:
> I have a pretty major concern about releasing .32 as a GA product. We
> haven't had a whole lot of beta's. I would really like to get this beta
> into a lot of people's hands, and hopefully get our next release to be a
> GA release. I think that the best way to do this, is
From: "Cliff Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 12:56 AM
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
>
> > I have one concern about 2.0.32 as a GA candidate.
> > In order to fix the last of the performance problems
> > in 2.0.x, we'll need to incorporate free lists for
>
> I have a pretty major concern about releasing .32 as a GA product. We
> haven't had a whole lot of beta's. I would really like to get this beta
> into a lot of people's hands, and hopefully get our next release to be a
> GA release. I think that the best way to do this, is to send a messag
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
> I have one concern about 2.0.32 as a GA candidate.
> In order to fix the last of the performance problems
> in 2.0.x, we'll need to incorporate free lists for
> buckets (the stuff that Cliff is working on).
I have another: I consider the existence of APR_
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
> If cliff's changes require a API change, we could do the API
> change now (post .32) and that will get the pressure of cliff
> on producing the whole patch, leaving him more time to test it.
The API change is almost all of the work. But it's within spit
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>Bill Stoddard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Design and implementation of Apache 2.0 is nearing completion. Module
>>>authors are encouraged to review the Apache 2.0 API and share any
>>>concerns with the Apache development team at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>This is your best opportunity to ensure
Just for the record, it seems someone already saw the tarball and posted it to
freshmeat.
http://freshmeat.net/releases/69982/
> > >Design and implementation of Apache 2.0 is nearing completion. Module
> > >authors are encouraged to review the Apache 2.0 API and share any
> > >concerns with the
> Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
> >Design and implementation of Apache 2.0 is nearing completion. Module
> >authors are encouraged to review the Apache 2.0 API and share any
> >concerns with the Apache development team at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >This is your best opportunity to ensure that your issues are
Bill Stoddard wrote:
>Design and implementation of Apache 2.0 is nearing completion. Module
>authors are encouraged to review the Apache 2.0 API and share any
>concerns with the Apache development team at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>This is your best opportunity to ensure that your issues are
>addressed p
12 matches
Mail list logo
