I still had not heard a reply back about my question. -----Forwarded Message-----
> From: David Nicklay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: epoll on squid > Date: 28 Jan 2003 11:57:55 -0500 > > > The patch for closing connections has been commited to the epoll branch. > > Incidentally, what would it take for epoll to be considered for > inclusion into HEAD now? I noticed that kqueue is still missing the two > things that were stated that comm_epoll.cc needed (see below): > > > from comm_kqueue.cc: > /* > * XXX Currently not implemented / supported by this module XXX > * > * - delay pools > * - deferred reads > * > * So, its not entirely useful in a production setup since if a read > * is meant to be deferred it isn't (we're not even throwing the event > * away here). Eventually the rest of the code will be rewritten > * so deferred reads aren't required. > * -- adrian > */ > > > On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 17:22, David Nicklay wrote: > > > > I finally got a test box for me to work on again. It is a single CPU > > 1GHz Pentium III with 2 GB RAM, stock Redhat-7.2 + linux-2.5.59. > > Running squid-3.0-devel using the epoll branch and an added patch to > > close connections in epoll, I was able to get 1917 requests per second > > on i.cnn.net. > > > > This is a substantial improvement over my previous test on this box with > > linux-2.4.9 running squid-2.5.STABLE1. In that test I only got 1333 > > requests per second. Unfortunately, there are too many variables for me > > to attribute the increase in performance to squid-3, the new kernel, or > > the epoll patch. I will try running another test to isolate it if I > > can. > > > > The patch for closing connections in epoll is forthcoming this week. > > > > -- > > David Nicklay > > Location: CNN Center - SE0811A > > Office: 404-827-2698 Cell: 404-545-6218 > -- > David Nicklay > Location: CNN Center - SE0811A > Office: 404-827-2698 Cell: 404-545-6218 -- David Nicklay Location: CNN Center - SE0811A Office: 404-827-2698 Cell: 404-545-6218
