From my point of view we should have pool of perl clones per each module instance. This way we could have multiple perl instances (each with its own perl script to run). Limiting on perl clone or interp per server thread will limit the multiple instances feature of rlm_perl. Again playing with min and max spare can give us some possibility's to force not unload perl interpreter during the lifetime of server and this way we can keep some DB handlers not to reconnect each time. Alan what is your point ? Best Regards, Boian Jordanov SNE Orbitel - Next Generation Telecom tel. +359 2 4004 723 tel. +359 2 4004 002 On Apr 16, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Apostolos Pantsiopoulos wrote:
Yes, that would be great. One perl interpreter per freeradius thread, that is. And I suppose the CLONE function would work again as expected (i.e. each freeradius thread would have its own perl interpreter and each script relaying on this interpreter would have its own connection to the DB). And the perl clones will not be controlled by the perl.conf (as in 2.0.x) but from the max_servers directive in radiusd.conf, right?
I am ready for testing whenever you have a patch ready.
Alan DeKok wrote:
I understand that there may some benefits in the current implementation (2.1.x) such as less threads, smaller memory footprint etc. but why change something that has been tested and working in the first place? A quest to make it better. If we were satisfied with the functionality of the server in 1.0, we would have had no improvements since then. In any case, it looks like it may be easy to change it so that there is one Perl thread per server thread. Would you be prepared to test patches? Alan DeKok.
Apostolos Pantsiopoulos wrote: - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
-- ------------------------------------------- Apostolos Pantsiopoulos Kinetix Tele.com R & D email: regs@kinetix.gr ------------------------------------------- - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html