Return-Path: owner-new-httpd
Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id HAA06729;
 Sun, 9 Apr 1995 07:43:41 -0700
Received: from cass41 by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id
 HAA06723; Sun, 9 Apr 1995 07:43:38 -0700
Received: from cass39.ast.cam.ac.uk by cass41 with smtp
	(Smail3.1.29.1 #9) id m0rxyDA-000055C; Sun, 9 Apr 95 15:43 BST
Received: by cass39.ast.cam.ac.uk (Smail3.1.29.1 #9)
	id m0rxyD9-0003p8C; Sun, 9 Apr 95 15:43 BST
Message-Id: <m0rxyD9-0003p8C@cass39.ast.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 95 15:43 BST
From: drtr@ast.cam.ac.uk (David Robinson)
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: Virtual Hosts patch
Content-Length: 346
Sender: owner-new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

>Why don't I run seperate httpds?  I did for a while.  Think about
>when non-forking is standard?  You want n*m processes or just m? (n
>is number of virtual hosts, m is number of children)?  I'd
>prefer m by a long shot.
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.