Re: UDS Patch

2013-12-05 Thread Jim Jagielski
and Daniel have different logging levels, it could explain why you don't measure the same discrepancy. Just my 2 cents. If I have time, I'll give another look tonight. CJ Message du 02/12/13 13:46 De : Jim Jagielski A : dev@httpd.apache.org Copie à : Objet : Re: UDS Patch

Re: UDS Patch

2013-12-05 Thread Daniel Ruggeri
running processes), I was able to get a much more reasonable set of numbers. The results, tested over a few hours were also quite stable: httpd-2.4.6 - w new patches Requests/sec: 35745.11 Requests/sec: 36763.18 Requests/sec: 36568.09 httpd2.4.6 - original UDS patch Requests/sec: 24413.15

Re: UDS Patch

2013-12-05 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Dec 5, 2013, at 2:03 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote: httpd-2.4.6 - w new patches Requests/sec: 35745.11 Requests/sec: 36763.18 Requests/sec: 36568.09 httpd2.4.6 - original UDS patch Requests/sec: 24413.15 Requests/sec: 24015.11 Requests/sec: 24346.76 w00t

Re: UDS Patch

2013-12-02 Thread Jim Jagielski
OK, I can't by inspection or by test see any performance differences between the 2 implementations (in fact, the older one, in some benchmarks, was slower due to the string operations in the critical path)... Any ideas? On Nov 26, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Thx...

Re: UDS Patch

2013-12-02 Thread Marion et Christophe JAILLET
@httpd.apache.org Copie à : Objet : Re: UDS Patch OK, I can't by inspection or by test see any performance differences between the 2 implementations (in fact, the older one, in some benchmarks, was slower due to the string operations in the critical path)... Any ideas? On Nov 26, 2013, at 4

Re: UDS Patch

2013-12-02 Thread Jim Jagielski
: Jim Jagielski A : dev@httpd.apache.org Copie à : Objet : Re: UDS Patch OK, I can't by inspection or by test see any performance differences between the 2 implementations (in fact, the older one, in some benchmarks, was slower due to the string operations in the critical path

Re: UDS Patch

2013-12-02 Thread Daniel Ruggeri
A : dev@httpd.apache.org Copie à : Objet : Re: UDS Patch OK, I can't by inspection or by test see any performance differences between the 2 implementations (in fact, the older one, in some benchmarks, was slower due to the string operations in the critical path)... Any ideas? On Nov 26

Re: UDS Patch

2013-11-26 Thread Jim Jagielski
Thx... the key is httpd-2.4.6-uds-delta.patch and that shows nothing, that I can see, which would result in the old being faster than the new... especially in the critical section where we do the apr_sockaddr_info_get() stuff... On Nov 26, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net

Re: UDS Patch

2013-11-22 Thread Jim Jagielski
Any luck with generating the diff yet? On Nov 19, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: The main thing is that it would be interesting to see the diffs between '2.4.6 w the (several) originally proposed UDS patches applied in order' and '2.4.6 w proposed backport'...

Re: UDS Patch

2013-11-22 Thread Daniel Ruggeri
Sorry, I thought the diffs I sent off list were good enough. I'll have to see if I even still have the original build lying around. Effectively, I just took the list of patches in the backport proposal and applied them one at a time to the 2.4.6 sources. If I can't find the build, I'll do the same

Re: UDS Patch

2013-11-19 Thread Daniel Ruggeri
Well, I don't have good news to report... doesn't seem to be a significant change in behavior... nginx: Requests/sec: 5082.43 Requests/sec: 5111.94 Requests/sec: 5063.27 2.4.6 - First UDS patch: Requests/sec: 4733.09 Requests/sec: 4529.49 Requests/sec: 4573.27 2.4.6 - r1511313 + new

Re: UDS Patch

2013-11-19 Thread Jim Jagielski
patch: Requests/sec: 4733.09 Requests/sec: 4529.49 Requests/sec: 4573.27 2.4.6 - r1511313 + new UDS patch + r1543174: Requests/sec: 3774.41 Requests/sec: 3878.02 Requests/sec: 3852.34 Will try to look into this next week... -- Daniel Ruggeri On 11/18/2013 6:37 PM

Re: UDS Patch

2013-11-19 Thread Jim Jagielski
Requests/sec: 5063.27 2.4.6 - First UDS patch: Requests/sec: 4733.09 Requests/sec: 4529.49 Requests/sec: 4573.27 2.4.6 - r1511313 + new UDS patch + r1543174: Requests/sec: 3774.41 Requests/sec: 3878.02 Requests/sec: 3852.34 Will try to look into this next week... -- Daniel

Re: UDS Patch

2013-11-19 Thread Jim Jagielski
, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote: Well, I don't have good news to report... doesn't seem to be a significant change in behavior... nginx: Requests/sec: 5082.43 Requests/sec: 5111.94 Requests/sec: 5063.27 2.4.6 - First UDS patch: Requests/sec: 4733.09

Re: UDS Patch

2013-11-19 Thread Daniel Ruggeri
Yes, agreed. Not sure if I made it clear, but I did apply r1511313 for the tests I did today (but not the one from yesterday). Of the several emails sent, the following have been tested: 2.4.6 w the (several) originally proposed UDS patches applied in order 2.4.6 w proposed backport (the 2 chunks

Re: UDS Patch

2013-11-19 Thread Jim Jagielski
... nginx: Requests/sec: 5082.43 Requests/sec: 5111.94 Requests/sec: 5063.27 2.4.6 - First UDS patch: Requests/sec: 4733.09 Requests/sec: 4529.49 Requests/sec: 4573.27 2.4.6 - r1511313 + new UDS patch + r1543174: Requests/sec: 3774.41 Requests/sec: 3878.02 Requests/sec

Re: UDS Patch

2013-11-19 Thread Jim Jagielski
The main thing is that it would be interesting to see the diffs between '2.4.6 w the (several) originally proposed UDS patches applied in order' and '2.4.6 w proposed backport'... Those diffs should show just the differences between the UDS implementations... On Nov 19, 2013, at 2:51 PM, Daniel

UDS Patch

2013-11-18 Thread Jim Jagielski
Can you retry with this applied: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1543174 On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote: And... this is a bit discouraging, but as a comparison to the older UDS patch 2.4.6 + original UDS patch

Re: UDS Patch

2013-11-18 Thread Daniel Ruggeri
On 11/18/2013 3:38 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Can you retry with this applied: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1543174 Definitely. I'll report back tomorrow so long as the universe wills it... but one last note I failed to mention in my original notes that there

Re: 2.4.x with uds patch; FastCGI broken?

2013-11-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
Thx for the bug report... I'll investigate. On Nov 15, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Kyle Johnson osma...@gmail.com wrote: I've been attempting to test the uds support on 2.4.x with the uds patch (http://people.apache.org/~jim/patches/uds-2.4.patch). I'm assuming HTTP works (it would appear based

Re: 2.4.x with uds patch; FastCGI broken?

2013-11-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
The below is the pertinent parts: On Nov 15, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Kyle Johnson osma...@gmail.com wrote: [proxy_fcgi:debug] [pid 30116:tid 140366778955520] mod_proxy_fcgi.c(764): [client 66.192.178.3:54534] AH01076: url: fcgi://localhost:8000/www/index.php proxyname: (null) proxyport: 0

Re: 2.4.x with uds patch; FastCGI broken?

2013-11-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Nov 15, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Kyle Johnson osma...@gmail.com wrote: [proxy_fcgi:debug] [pid 30116:tid 140366778955520] mod_proxy_fcgi.c(73): [client 66.192.178.3:54534] AH01060: set r-filename to proxy:fcgi://localhost:8000/www/index.php Also need to see if the above is a factor...

Re: 2.4.x with uds patch; FastCGI broken?

2013-11-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
OK, I think I know what it is, and it's simple (if true), but a pain. The issue is that during the proxypass stuff, we tuck away the name, which may, or may not, include a port designation, depending on if the URL passed does. All well and good. The problem is that during the

Re: 2.4.x with uds patch; FastCGI broken?

2013-11-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
FWIW, this isn't related to UDS at all, except that we found this bug due to UDS. On Nov 16, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: OK, I think I know what it is, and it's simple (if true), but a pain. The issue is that during the proxypass stuff, we tuck away the name,

2.4.x with uds patch; FastCGI broken?

2013-11-15 Thread Kyle Johnson
I've been attempting to test the uds support on 2.4.x with the uds patch ( http://people.apache.org/~jim/patches/uds-2.4.patch). I'm assuming HTTP works (it would appear based on the mailing list that the author has been tested it with HTTP). However, when I try using fcgi the socket appears