On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Thomas Åkesson <thomas_at_akesson.cc> wrote:
> On 14 nov 2012, at 01:44, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Philip Martin wrote on Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 21:30:00 +0000:
> >> Perhaps we could start up a separate hook script process before
> >> allocating the large FSFS cache and then delegate the fork/exec to that
> >> smaller process?
> > If so, let's have that daemon handle all forks we might do, not just
> > those related to hook scripts. (Otherwise we'll run into the same
> > problem as soon as we have another use-case for fork() in the server
> > code --- such as calling svn_sysinfo__release_name().)
> Looking at it from another perspective, perhaps the cache should live
> within a separate daemon? That would address not only the hook script
> problem but also the challenges of prefork processes typically required
> when combining Subversion and PHP.
For non-obvious reasons listed at the end of
this is not trivial to do. I may give it a try in 1.9
but there might be lock cleanup edge cases that
simply can't be handled in a portable way.
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
Received on 2012-11-19 16:20:17 CET