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. - Julian
