On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 06.03.2012 14:15, david wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>
>>> On 06.03.2012 02:07, FredB wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> Amos, like I said in bug report, Squid 3.2 is very stable with your
>>>> last fix, and Alex's patch which is not already included in truck, and
>>>> I would like to know the schedule for an official stable release,
>>>> approximately of course (before this summer, end of year ?)
>>>
>>> The checklist I have to work by is at
>>> http://wiki.squid-cache.org/ReleaseProcess#Squid-3
>>> We are looping around at the "freeze" stage (3), waiting to reach 0 major+
>>> bugs before we can start the stable release countdown stages (4+).
>>>
>>>
>>> We are intending 3.2 to supersede and obsolete all 3.x and 2.x series
>>> releases. Which means there are just over 50 bugs rated major or higher
>>> which need to be confirmed as fixed in 3.2, or downgraded before 3.2 can
>>> start its stability countdown.
>>
>> I haven't checked in the last several months, but has there been any
>> progress on the fact that ACLs are so much more expensive to evaluate
>> in 3.x than in 1.x or 2.x?
>>
>> David Lang
>
> regex optimizations was done after your last message. Since your worst-case
> tests had many regex I was hoping to hear back from you about whether that
> was significant progress or more was needed.
Ok, I'll check things.
I will point out that even when I changed my tests to have no regexes in
them there was still a very large performance hit from the ACL checking.
David Lang
> The other major optimizations have been mostly in request and DNS handling.
>
> Amos
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 06 2012 - 02:58:07 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Mar 06 2012 - 12:00:02 MST