httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Patch to slow down children's deaths (fwd)
Date Wed, 08 Jan 1997 02:07:24 GMT
Cliff Skolnick wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > > Will we need this in 2.0 if we're threading?
> > > 
> > 
> > Not likely... additional child processes will be semi-rare
> 
> for many OS each process is limited to only one kernel level thread.  This
> means only one thread can do any system call like a read() at a time, and
> the others will patiently block.  For these OSs there will still need to
> be many processes to balance the I/O load.  This is the case with
> pthreads() for bsd systems last time I looked.
> 

True, but will we see as many forks of new processes or just more
processes hanging around? I think the current trouble is the
expensive forks when the child-processes are almost immediately
killed.

-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"

Mime
View raw message