[master] 15ec79c Concentrate the acceptor-setup-session code.

Federico Schwindt fgsch at lodoss.net
Fri Apr 10 19:58:11 CEST 2015

Yes, sorry. I was somewhat hasty when I sent this (I was boarding a plane).

I'm not sure how we can get some metrics without implementing this though.

Perhaps DocWilco has some numbers he can share?

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at phk.freebsd.dk>

> --------
> In message <CAJV_h0YFE=
> 9Ad6dOwf+z5aq3aFqROtzA8kdSowTOYgRRAMv05g at mail.gmail.com>
> , Federico Schwindt writes:
> >Attached is a patch in that effect.
> >
> >I have no empirical evidence this will improve things but I believe Fastly
> >and others are doing it with good results.
> As I understand the documentation of SO_REUSEPORT your patch is a no-op.
> See for instance:   http://lwn.net/Articles/542629/
> SO_REUSEPORT allows you to bind(2) multiple sockets to the same port
> number[1].
> Setting the option but not creating more sockets doesn't do anything.
> What we do fall somewhere in the middle between the two scenarios descriped
> in the article above:  We have a single acceptor thread per thread pool.
> I have no idea how that performs relative to having multiple sockets, but
> I'd like to see some actual numbers before we start ripping things up.
> Poul-Henning
> [1] You can already do that with UDP under certain circumstances, but it
>     is not allowed for TCP.
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-dev/attachments/20150410/52617da3/attachment.html>

More information about the varnish-dev mailing list