On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Robert Collins wrote:
> So, chatting with Adrian today, and some friends, I have some thoughts
> about what precisely 3.0 should be.
>
> I think 3.0 STABLE1 when release should be:
> * more functional than 2.6 STABLEX - there should be no regressions in
> functionality.
> * within 10-15% of the speed of 2.6 STABLEX.
Does this mean +/- 10-15%?
In order to meet the goal we'll need a measurable definition for
"speed". I assume that you're thinking along the lines of sustained
requests/second within some response time window? Which OS, and
which filesystem options?
> these two points are the primary things I can think of that will stop
> people adopting squid-3.0. And what we want is for developers to feel
I would probably put stability ahead of performance, but yes, assuming
squid-3 is stable enough then people will expect it to perform at least
as well as the old.
DW
Received on Mon Sep 11 2006 - 16:57:09 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Sun Oct 01 2006 - 12:00:06 MDT