On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 16:57 -0600, Duane Wessels wrote: > > > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Robert Collins wrote: > > > So, chatting with Adrian today, and some friends, I have some thoughts > > about what precisely 3.0 should be. > > > > I think 3.0 STABLE1 when release should be: > > * more functional than 2.6 STABLEX - there should be no regressions in > > functionality. > > * within 10-15% of the speed of 2.6 STABLEX. > > Does this mean +/- 10-15%?
If 2.6-LATEST_STABLE has a sustained request rate of 8000 4k requests per second, then by 'within 10-15%' I mean: 3.0 should have a sustained request rate in the same scenario of no less than 6800 4k requests per second. > In order to meet the goal we'll need a measurable definition for > "speed". I assume that you're thinking along the lines of sustained > requests/second within some response time window? Which OS, and > which filesystem options? I think 2.6 and 3.0 should be relatively close on that - so say 'linux, epoll, aufs'. Or perhaps we should have a few scenarios. > > these two points are the primary things I can think of that will stop > > people adopting squid-3.0. And what we want is for developers to feel > > I would probably put stability ahead of performance, but yes, assuming > squid-3 is stable enough then people will expect it to perform at least > as well as the old. Yah, thats pretty much my feeling. -Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
