Hi! On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <[email protected]> wrote: > -------- > In message <[email protected]>, Nils Goroll writes: >>On 04/04/16 09:54, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>> Deven (@dho) has proposed switching to 64bit ints for time format >>> and he claims to have numbers showing this being a good idea. >> >>Sure. Regarding his proposal I am waiting for details.
I'll send a separate email to the list regarding Varnish performance stuff that is immediately interesting to us. >>Other than that, changing the datatype and my proposal are independent. So my >>question at this point is: Does my proposal make any sense? > > Since Devon has looked at this, he may have a more informed answer than > me, so talk to him first. Looking at the patch, I believe this proposal is entirely independent of what I would propose and can be considered separately. I don't believe that the performance comment is necessarily useful -- monotonic time interfaces may be faster to access, but we don't need to manage a real and monotonic time component per-request, and it doesn't need to be double-precision FP (which kills some performance gains you get from using that interface anyway). But that doesn't really matter for the context of this patch, which I think is useful and solves a real problem, and changing it to behave differently is much more invasive. --dho > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. > > _______________________________________________ > varnish-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
