I've opened https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59797 to
track this.
Nate, if you let me have your public IP, I'll get you unbanned from BZ
as well.
Mark
On 01/07/2016 15:33, Nate Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> Am 28.06.2016 um 18:06 schrieb th
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Am 28.06.2016 um 18:06 schrieb therealnewo...@gmail.com:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Rainer Jung
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 28.06.2016 um 16:07 schrieb Mark Thomas:
On 28/06/2016 12:28, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>
Am 28.06.2016 um 18:06 schrieb therealnewo...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
Am 28.06.2016 um 16:07 schrieb Mark Thomas:
On 28/06/2016 12:28, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 28/06/2016 11:34, Rainer Jung wrote:
Am 28.06.2016 um 11:15 schrieb Mark Thomas:
Index
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Am 28.06.2016 um 16:07 schrieb Mark Thomas:
>>
>> On 28/06/2016 12:28, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28/06/2016 11:34, Rainer Jung wrote:
Am 28.06.2016 um 11:15 schrieb Mark Thomas:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> Index: src/ssl.c
> =
Am 28.06.2016 um 16:07 schrieb Mark Thomas:
On 28/06/2016 12:28, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 28/06/2016 11:34, Rainer Jung wrote:
Am 28.06.2016 um 11:15 schrieb Mark Thomas:
Index: src/ssl.c
===
--- src/ssl.c(revision 1750259)
+
On 28/06/2016 12:28, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 28/06/2016 11:34, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> Am 28.06.2016 um 11:15 schrieb Mark Thomas:
>
>
>
>>> Index: src/ssl.c
>>> ===
>>> --- src/ssl.c(revision 1750259)
>>> +++ src/ssl.c(workin
On 28/06/2016 11:34, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Am 28.06.2016 um 11:15 schrieb Mark Thomas:
>> Index: src/ssl.c
>> ===
>> --- src/ssl.c(revision 1750259)
>> +++ src/ssl.c(working copy)
>> @@ -420,6 +420,10 @@
>> return psaptr
Am 28.06.2016 um 11:15 schrieb Mark Thomas:
On 27/06/2016 23:54, Nate Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 27/06/2016 19:59, Nate Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
I wouldn't care too much about portability right now. If you
On 27/06/2016 23:54, Nate Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 27/06/2016 19:59, Nate Clark wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Rainer Jung
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
I wouldn't care too much about portability right now. If you can prove
Mark's ana
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 27/06/2016 19:59, Nate Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
>
>
>>> I wouldn't care too much about portability right now. If you can prove
>>> Mark's analysis by using gettid() on Linux and checking that th
On 27/06/2016 19:59, Nate Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> I wouldn't care too much about portability right now. If you can prove
>> Mark's analysis by using gettid() on Linux and checking that this fixes the
>> performance issue, that would very useful feed
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Am 27.06.2016 um 18:47 schrieb Nate Clark:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:17 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rainer Jung
wrote:
>
> Great analysis. I wa
Am 27.06.2016 um 18:47 schrieb Nate Clark:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:17 PM, wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
Great analysis. I was really wondering, what could make the hash map so huge
and hadn't thought about the hash
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:17 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:04 PM, wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rainer Jung
>> wrote:
>>> Great analysis. I was really wondering, what could make the hash map so huge
>>> and hadn't thought about the hash function as the problem.
>>>
>>
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:04 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> Great analysis. I was really wondering, what could make the hash map so huge
>> and hadn't thought about the hash function as the problem.
>>
>> Before OpenSSL 1.1.0 there's a callback for applicat
On 27/06/2016 17:04, therealnewo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
Thanks for the feedback.
>> So we could probably work around the problem of the poor hashing function by
>> passing in IDs that work for hashing (pre-hashed ID?). Of course then we
>> lo
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
>
> Am 27.06.2016 um 15:11 schrieb Mark Thomas:
>>
>> I believe I have an explanation for what is going on that fits both the
>> reported behaviour and the proposed fix.
>>
>> Background
>> ==
>>
>> OpenSSL tracks a list of
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> I believe I have an explanation for what is going on that fits both the
> reported behaviour and the proposed fix.
>
> Background
> ==
>
> OpenSSL tracks a list of the most recent errors for each thread in a
> hash map keyed on the thre
Hi Mark,
Am 27.06.2016 um 15:11 schrieb Mark Thomas:
I believe I have an explanation for what is going on that fits both the
reported behaviour and the proposed fix.
Background
==
OpenSSL tracks a list of the most recent errors for each thread in a
hash map keyed on the thread (int_thr
I believe I have an explanation for what is going on that fits both the
reported behaviour and the proposed fix.
Background
==
OpenSSL tracks a list of the most recent errors for each thread in a
hash map keyed on the thread (int_thread_hash in err.c). Reading and
writing to this hash map
Thanks. This is all really helpful. I need to spend some time digesting
all of this information, reviewing the OpenSSL code and trying to figure
out what might be going on.
One of the things I am trying to do is to understand why the proposed
patch fixes the issue and if an alternative approach is
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/06/2016 21:52, therealnewo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> I'm wondering if this is a problem that builds up over time. If I
>>> understood your previous posts correctly, running the big tests
>>> immediately gave ~700MB/s whereas running the s
Nate,
On 6/24/16 10:40 AM, therealnewo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>> 2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> I'm going to start some local performance testing to confirm I see
>>> similar results and, assuming I do, I'll st
On 24/06/2016 21:52, therealnewo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I'm wondering if this is a problem that builds up over time. If I
>> understood your previous posts correctly, running the big tests
>> immediately gave ~700MB/s whereas running the small tests then the big
>> tests resulting in ~350MB/s duri
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:52 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 24/06/2016 20:01, therealnewo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 24/06/2016 18:41, Nate Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Nate C
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/06/2016 20:01, therealnewo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 24/06/2016 18:41, Nate Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Nate Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:27
On 24/06/2016 20:01, therealnewo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 24/06/2016 18:41, Nate Clark wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Nate Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/06/2016 18:25, Mark Tho
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/06/2016 18:41, Nate Clark wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Nate Clark wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 24/06/2016 18:25, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> Can you provide the settings you are
On 24/06/2016 18:41, Nate Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Nate Clark wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 24/06/2016 18:25, Mark Thomas wrote:
Can you provide the settings you are using for the Executor as well please?
>>
>> >
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Nate Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 24/06/2016 18:25, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you provide the settings you are using for the Executor as well please?
>
> maxThreads="500" minSpareThreads="4"/>
>
>>
>> A
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/06/2016 18:25, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Can you provide the settings you are using for the Executor as well please?
>
> And how long do the initial 5,000,000 4k requests take to process?
>
40 minutes.
-nate
-
On 24/06/2016 18:25, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/06/2016 18:11, therealnewo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 24/06/2016 11:17, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
> Thanks.
>
> I'm going to start some
On 24/06/2016 18:11, therealnewo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 24/06/2016 11:17, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>>> 2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>>>
Thanks.
I'm going to start some local performance testing to confirm I see
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/06/2016 11:17, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>> 2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> I'm going to start some local performance testing to confirm I see
>>> similar results and, assuming I do, I'll start looking at fixi
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I'm going to start some local performance testing to confirm I see
>> similar results and, assuming I do, I'll start looking at fixing this
>> for 1.2.x/9.0.x and back-porting.
>>
>
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:37 AM, wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 24/06/2016 11:17, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>>> 2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>>>
Thanks.
I'm going to start some local performance testing to confirm I see
similar re
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/06/2016 11:17, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>> 2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> I'm going to start some local performance testing to confirm I see
>>> similar results and, assuming I do, I'll start looking at fixi
On 24/06/2016 15:40, therealnewo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>> 2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> I'm going to start some local performance testing to confirm I see
>>> similar results and, assuming I do, I'll start loo
On 24/06/2016 11:17, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I'm going to start some local performance testing to confirm I see
>> similar results and, assuming I do, I'll start looking at fixing this
>> for 1.2.x/9.0.x and back-porting.
>>
> Hum, the fi
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I'm going to start some local performance testing to confirm I see
>> similar results and, assuming I do, I'll start looking at fixing this
>> for 1.2.x/9.0.x and back-porting.
>>
>
2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
> Thanks.
>
> I'm going to start some local performance testing to confirm I see
> similar results and, assuming I do, I'll start looking at fixing this
> for 1.2.x/9.0.x and back-porting.
>
> Hum, the fix that was submitted doesn't make sense IMO since wri
On 23/06/2016 22:31, Nate Clark wrote:
> I tried to submit the bug but it seems that I am now unable to access
> bz.apache.org. Since you made it seem like it was important for this
> to be known about here is the info and patches.
Thanks. I'll chat with the infra folks and see if I can get whatev
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 23/06/2016 20:28, Nate Clark wrote:
>>
>> If you want details about the issue I am happy to provide them but
>> just didn't wan to duplicate explaining it in a bug and in an email
>> thread.
>
> To be honest, it doesn't really matter which p
On 23/06/2016 20:28, Nate Clark wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I encountered a performance issue when using the apr protocol. I
> tracked it down to basically missing a piece of the integration with
> openssl. I was able to fix the performance issue but it required a
> change to both tomcat-native and tomcat
Hello,
I encountered a performance issue when using the apr protocol. I
tracked it down to basically missing a piece of the integration with
openssl. I was able to fix the performance issue but it required a
change to both tomcat-native and tomcat. I was going to file a bug
with my patches but tom
45 matches
Mail list logo
