question (MT)

Weber, Markus fvd at
Wed Oct 13 18:10:43 UTC 2004

Russ wrote:
> innd is single-threaded because writing threaded code properly is a
> lot more complex and INN dates from 1991.  :)

"Properly" is the right wording here ... Not sure if it's worth cleaning
up INN to get it MT safe. Beside some added functionality the only
I've come along so far is when you get CPU bound and have a few spare
to burn ... however, it might require quite some more flow redesign to
it "fine grained".

We took the 2.4.1 base and "coded" (well, you can't call that properly
ded) some MT stuff in to have ARTparse run in parallel as our box got
loaded @ 175mbps incoming to find the newlines ... it "kind of works but
not too stable, sometimes puts some fancy output in the logs ... still
for the time spent on it". As the post stuff wasn't a bottleneck we've
protected that whole part with a single mutex ... to keep it easy.

However, don't most people nowadays buy "cheaper" x86 boxes with just
or two "blinding fast" CPUs? Would the added functionality justify a
code redesign or better find other working solutions?

I remember MT on the wishlist for some upcoming releases -was it 2.5?-
but it looks like those wishes are gone. Does anyone knows what happend


[E] Markus Weber <fvd at> [IRC] FvD [P] <fvd at>

More information about the inn-workers mailing list