> On Nov 23, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Mark Moseley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Leif Hedstrom <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Nov 22, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Mark Moseley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I'm looking to deploy ATS in a very busy, remap-heavy reverse proxy >> > environment. I'll be using a handful of lines of Lua to remap based on an >> > incoming header. >> > >> > The new proxy.config.remap.num_remap_threads option sounds like it'd be >> > pretty important to set for such a scenario. >> > >> > Could the devs chime in on what would be an appropriate # for this setting? >> > >> > Should 1 suffice? Should it be equal to # of cores? Or something much >> > higher? >> >> >> The only use case I think think of for the remap threads feature is if you >> have a plugin that can block a thread. With block, I mean, not yield it in >> some reasonable amount of milliseconds. For now, if you use this remap >> threads processor, you also have to turn off the per thread sharing of >> sessions, and switch to a single global session pool. > > > Ok, so it sounds like if something isn't blocking, then there's no need to > set it at all then. My Lua code is just doing some munging on the original > destination IP, so should never block. Sound right?
Right. -- Leif
