httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <ako...@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject Re: apache/linux modules
Date Wed, 04 Feb 1998 08:28:48 GMT
On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Michael Douglass wrote:

> 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

All code segments, AFAIK, are placed in shared memory. You don't save
memory, really. And shared libs are still, I believe, reserved their own
memory for each incarnation, since they do have their own variables and
stack and things.

The term 'shared libraries' comes from the fact that the library can be
shared among programs, without having to be incorporated into each, and
without having to recompile the program if the library changes. It's
shared code, not shared memory.

> 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.

Most modern OSes do this anyway.

> 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.

Dean is very much concerned, here, that Apache does not lose its ability
to work as a high-performance, high-speed, high-volume web server in our
zeal to make it better adapted to the average user (the 90% case). Which
is understandable.

-- Alexei Kosut <> <>
   Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <> *

View raw message