httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@ai.mit.edu (Robert S. Thau)
Subject Re: Virtual Hosts patch
Date Sun, 09 Apr 1995 10:55:27 GMT
   Date: Sun, 9 Apr 95 15:43 BST
   From: drtr@ast.cam.ac.uk (David Robinson)
   Precedence: bulk

   But why would m be the same in both cases? I'd change m to m/n so that the
   total number of processes are the same.

    David.

Because if processes are dedicated to each address, they can't
dynamically adjust to the actual load pattern (which may have peaks on
different virtual hosts at different times).  If virtual host A is
getting pounded, or has a lot of slow clients, and virtual host B is
idle, you'd want most of the server processes working for A, and vice
versa when the situation is reversed.  A common pool allows for this;
separate pools don't.

(Given the peakiness of web loads, most processes in a server pool are
likely to be idle most of the time --- they're there anyway so the
server doesn't have to fork, and get even slower, in response to
transient load peaks). 

Sorry, David, but I think Cliff's right about this.

rst

Mime
View raw message