Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> In your branch your introduce handles to handles.
>> APR does the same. Is that unreasonable?
>> 4. It seems current implementation reuses file handles even error is
>> occurred when working with the handle. It's potentially dangerous from
>> my point view.
> Interesting point. But I think it will not cause issues in
> our case because we use it only within a FSFS "session".
> Any I/O error should result in a failure of the respective FS
> operation, in turn freeing the whole cache instance.
> The whole problem with I/O improvement is that there
> is probably no other way to make progress in the next
> 3 years: Some of it could be addressed within APR,
> but that won't be available for Apache < 2.4 (2.6?).
> A better solution is FSv2 but that is at least 3 years
> away from now.
It is worth considering putting this kind of work into the APR source code. We have close links with APR: some of the APR developers are Subversion developers. Historically, what we have done before when developing an improvement that is best suited to being in APR, is:
* write the new code in Subversion first;
* port the new code to APR;
* make Subversion use the APR version if it is available, otherwise the Subversion version of the code;
* test Subversion using both versions of the code;
* submit a patch to the APR project;
* wait a few years;
* strip out Subversion's own copy of the code.
Received on 2012-01-09 09:57:11 CET