To correct myself, it seems the cron in web2py no longer uses the filesystem timestamps, but cPickles timestamps from/to the lock file. I'm not sure why Massimo changed it, but this *is* a bigger overhead than it was previously (as it needs to do file locking and cPickle.load() on every single request - as opposed to a simple cached non-locking filesystem call).
On Apr 1, 8:20 pm, AchipA <attila.cs...@gmail.com> wrote: > Exactly, hardcron checks once a minute, softcron checks on each page > load. The 'check' is calling a function or two and comparing a file's > timestamp, so not *that* much more expensive. > > On Apr 1, 7:51 pm, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 1, 2010, at 10:37 AM, AchipA wrote: > > > > There is some overhead, but efficiency is a disputable term - there is > > > certainly more overhead than hardcron, but IMO not in a way that would > > > affect overall performance unless you're running it on a site that has > > > hundreds of thousands of hits per day... > > > Perhaps we could change (or eliminate) the wording. How about simply 'Using > > softcron'? > > > I'm curious: what is the extra overhead of soft vs hardcron? Just that it > > does a test on each page access? I'm guessing that's pretty cheap. > > > > On Apr 1, 5:40 pm, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> wrote: > > >> Section 4.17 (cron) mentions hard vs softcrondefaults, but doesn't say > > >> how to override them. > > > >> Section 4.1 (cli) doesn't list --softcron > > > >> The startup message for softcronsays: 'Using softcron (but this is not > > >> very efficient)' > > > >> In what sense "not efficient"? I understand that the timing is less > > >> consistent, but is there really more overhead? softcron seems like a > > >> pretty reasonable choice if all you're doing it deleting expired > > >> sessions. > > -- To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
