From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tremer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: Merge Window Closing Announcement for Core Update 127 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 10:43:38 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3098425421320131166==" List-Id: --===============3098425421320131166== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, > On 13 Jan 2019, at 14:24, Bernhard Bitsch wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 >> Gesendet: Sonntag, 13. Januar 2019 um 13:43 Uhr >> Von: "Matthias Fischer" >> An: "Michael Tremer" >> Cc: "IPFire: Development-List" >> Betreff: Re: Merge Window Closing Announcement for Core Update 127 >>=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >> On 13.01.2019 13:14, Michael Tremer wrote: >>> I sent squid thousands of requests with ab (Apache Benchmark) and that wo= rked fine with only one redirector. >>=20 >> Thanks for the feedback! Merged. ;-) >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > Nevertheless it's worth reasoning about multiprocessing ( #redirectors =3D = #processors ) versus multitasking ( #redirectors =3D #task needed by the envi= ronment ). > Even with only one processor it is possible to serve multiple requests. Usi= ng wait phases for other processes is a basic feature of multitasking. This is not true for the redirectors though. Our version of squidGuard takes only one request at a time. While processing = that, it performs a database lookup (which is a btree) which is held in memor= y. So at no time it is reading anything from disk which would allow the kerne= l to interrupt the process and wait until the hard drive has responded. Therefore it does not make any sense to run more than one process per CPU cor= e. I guess update accelerator might suffer a little bit in the instance that it = finds a match. Squidclamav is a different thing. It makes absolutely no sense= to use that any more. -Michael > - Bernhard ( aka BeBiMa ) --===============3098425421320131166==--