httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Douglass <miked...@texas.net>
Subject Re: apache/linux modules
Date Wed, 04 Feb 1998 08:00:12 GMT
On Mon, Feb 02, 1998 at 04:13:05PM -0800, Dean Gaudet said:

> You'll waste some memory this route, but for the 90% case that isn't an
> issue.

Why would it be wasting memory with this route?  I know that, at least
under Solaris, .so code segments are placed in shared memory (hence
'shared libraries')...  Wouldn't this actually save memory since having
100 servers running will have only a fraction of the amount of code
space used for the modules as normal?  To me this would be a good think.

Is that what you mean by the 90% case???  And if that is the case,
then this concept and idea should be touted as a thing to do.  Although
I _hardly_ would want a static-only or dynamic-only concept...  One
in which you have static modules and have the option of loading static
modules seems a nice compromise.

Or am I lost?

-- 
Michael Douglass
Texas Networking, Inc.

<tnet admin> anyway, I'm off, perl code is making me [a] crosseyed toady

Mime
View raw message