Re: [squid-users] Squid-2, Squid-3, roadmap

I'll readily admit that I Am Not A Developer, but I'm wondering if
this could be something that could be worked incrementally - finding
easy-to-cleave-off subsystems that can be moved to separate threads
similarly to how asyncio was. The most obvious one I can think of is
the front-end client/server network socket communication code; next
would be logging. Are there any other subsystems that jump out as
"independent" enough to do this in the existing code base?

-C

On Mar 6, 2008, at 4:17 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 05, 2008, Michael Puckett wrote:
>> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>
>>> A killer app for -3 would be multi-core support (and the perf
>>> advantages that it would bring), or something else that the
>>> re-architecture makes possible that isn't easy in -2. AIUI, though,
>>> that isn't the case; i.e., -3 doesn't make this significantly
>>> easier.
>> Absolutely THE killer app for either -2 or -3. The fact that multi-
>> core
>> processors are now the defacto standard in any box makes this more
>> important by the day IMHO. Being able to do sustained IO across
>> multiple
>> Gb NICs will absolutely require it. This is the single biggest
>> performance enhancement that could be implemented. So where does
>> multi-core support fall on either roadmap?
>
> 12 months away on my draft Squid-2 roadmap, if there was enough
> commercial
> interest. Thing is, the Squid internals are very horrible for SMP
> (both 2 and 3)
> and the list of stuff that I've put into the squid-2 roadmap is what
> I think
> is the minimum amount of work required before really starting to
> take advantage
> of multiple cores.
>
>
>
>
> Adrian
>
> --
> - Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting - Commercial
> Squid Support -
> - $25/pm entry-level VPSes w/ capped bandwidth charges available in
> WA -
>
Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 08:37:30 MST