Davi Arnaut wrote:
The solution consists of using the cache file as a output buffer by
splitting the buckets into smaller chunks and writing then to disk. Once
written (apr_file_write_full) a new file bucket is created with offset
and size of the just written buffer. The old bucket is deleted.
On Mon, October 30, 2006 4:44 pm, Brian Akins wrote:
Without having looked very much at the code, this approach sounds
feasible.
I'm still confused as to why we need the temporary brigade??? Why not
swap
the buckets?
The current cache (as in what is in trunk right now) does exactly that -
Davi Arnaut wrote:
. Problem:
You have described two separate problems below.
For a moment forget about file buckets and large files, what's really at
stake is proxy/cache brigade management when the arrival rate is too
high (e.g. a single 4.7GB file bucket, high-rate input data to be
Graham Leggett wrote:
Davi Arnaut wrote:
. Problem:
You have described two separate problems below.
No, and it's seems you are deeply confused on what buckets and brigades
represent. You already committed what ? four fixes to the same problem ?
Each time we point your wrong assumptions you
On 10/29/2006 04:39 PM, Davi Arnaut wrote:
Graham Leggett wrote:
Davi Arnaut wrote:
. Problem:
You have described two separate problems below.
No, and it's seems you are deeply confused on what buckets and brigades
represent. You already committed what ? four fixes to the same
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/29/2006 04:39 PM, Davi Arnaut wrote:
Graham Leggett wrote:
Davi Arnaut wrote:
. Problem:
You have described two separate problems below.
No, and it's seems you are deeply confused on what buckets and brigades
represent. You already committed what ? four
Davi Arnaut wrote:
I've just described that. Maybe my English was poor in the e-mail.
Your English is spot on, unfortunately the aggressive nature of your
email isn't.
You are not going to bully anybody on this list into accepting any
patch, it's not how this project works.
It is quite
Graham Leggett wrote:
Davi Arnaut wrote:
I've just described that. Maybe my English was poor in the e-mail.
Your English is spot on, unfortunately the aggressive nature of your
email isn't.
You are not going to bully anybody on this list into accepting any
patch, it's not how this
Davi Arnaut wrote:
You are not going to bully anybody on this list into accepting any
patch, it's not how this project works.
I'm not bulling anyone. This is not a personal attack, it was a public
calling for you to adjust the process.
Let's not fool ourselves, it was a personal attack.
Graham Leggett wrote:
Davi Arnaut wrote:
You are not going to bully anybody on this list into accepting any
patch, it's not how this project works.
I'm not bulling anyone. This is not a personal attack, it was a public
calling for you to adjust the process.
Let's not fool ourselves, it
Hi,
It's quite clear that without some agreement we won't be able to
actually fix mod_cache shortcomings. The idea now is to gather our
efforts to get consensus on the proposed fixes and commit then one by one.
The current high priority issues can be summarized as:
* Buffering
. Problem:
For
11 matches
Mail list logo
