From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <199804081242.IAA18765@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: process model again...
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 08:42:38 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980408100448.13315o-100000@mda00.jrc.it> from
 "Dirk-Willem van Gulik" at Apr 8, 98 10:09:01 am
Content-Type: text
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> 
> 
> > So I've been continuing with trying to figure out if the current
> > perform_idle_server_maintenance() code is right.  I'm now convinced that
> > we no longer need MinSpareServer, but can't give a good mathematical
> > reason for why.  It just doesn't seem necessary to keep many spare when
> > the server will exponentially spawn if a load presents itself.
> 
> Hmm, though the time needed to spawn a new child is short (and might be
> short compared to the actual handling) I would expect that this delay
> is in itself the reason for having MinSpareServer's ready.
> 

Hmmm... worse case, let's assume MinSpareServer is 5 and we all
of a sudden get hit by a bunch of requests such that we are 5 process
short. With MinSpareServer, Apache will be able to handle these
requests with "no" delay and then spawn extra processes "in the
background" as well. Without MinSpareServer, Apache could take
about 3 seconds to have enough processes to handle the
extra requests, so there's that delay... Most likely I buggered
something up in my assumptions, but that's how it looks to me :/

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   |||   jim@jaguNET.com   |||   http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul,
            cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"