From owner-freebsd-apache@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 25 02:39:39 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-apache@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8898516A4CE for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:39:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from utopia.in.force-elite.com (force-elite.com [216.255.199.145]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B8043D49 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:39:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chip@force-elite.com) X-AuthUser: chip@force-elite.com Received: from [10.10.10.101] (199.5.172.2:34173)Server] ; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:39:37 -0700 From: Paul Querna To: freebsd-apache@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:40:09 -0600 Message-Id: <1093401609.12212.15.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 1.5.92.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: KQueue Patches X-BeenThere: freebsd-apache@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Support of apache-related ports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:39:39 -0000 Hello, I am the author of the KQueue/Epoll support for APR/Apache-2.1. I noticed that the Ports are including these changes as an optional patch. (cool!) I was wondering if anyone has had success using this patch, or if they have had any problems since applying it? I am also wondering if anyone has started writing a document about performance tuning Apache 2.0/2.1 just for FreeBSD? There are many small optimizations that can make a huge difference in production. Thanks, -Paul Querna