From: Tim Hudson <tjh@mincom.com>
Message-Id: <199608220224.AA26778@orb.mincom.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Ermm ... another thing
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 12:24:21 +1000 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <9608211931.aa10271@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk> from "Ben Laurie" at
 Aug 21, 96 07:31:30 pm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

According to Ben Laurie:
> > The problem is that they can't. Specifically, you need to be more specific
> > than "Solaris" or "HP-UX". As I understand it, Solaris 2.5 has a working
> > threads package, 2.4 does not; a similar situation applies to Linux.
> > HP-UX
> > 9.04 has a working shared-memory mmap implementation on Rob Hartill's
> > copy, but not mine.
> Surely not even HP are so brain-dead that it isn't possible to tell from a
> patch level or something?
    HP-UX 9.x is sufficiently braindead in terms of mmap support that it is 
something to avoid. Certainly 10.x doesn't fix all the problems. 

    HP-UX 9.x behaves significantly differently on the 800 series (I think
the HP term is "business servers") as distrinct from the 700 series 
workstations.

    I have a system that locks a 12 way T500 running HP-UX 10.01 at 99%
CPU across all CPUs doing basically nothing productive ... I've not diagnosed
the real problem as for the product in question we just use SYSV SHM rather
than MMAP where mmap doesn't work.

    Don't get me wrong ... I think HP have got some great workstations and
their high-end MP is good at 10.01 ... just they don't seem to be able to
get mmap right yet.

Tim.