httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: threaded reliability (was RE: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src/main http_main.c)
Date Mon, 25 May 1998 13:23:38 GMT
Dean Gaudet wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 May 1998, Dale Couch wrote:
> 
> > I must say the process model is very nice because you all have the advantage
> > that the actual program restarts after X number of requests if it is
> > misbehaving.  We have to stop the entire server and restart it.  On a large
> > volume site there are people who get 'server not available' messages while
> > you are doing that.  Plus if the server decides to commit suicide there is
> > nothing to take its place.
> 
> Any suggestions?  ISTR that WIN32 doesn't allow multiple processes to use
> accept() on the same socket... it's not even a matter of whether they do
> it simultaneously or use a shared lock, they just can't do it period.

It's not so much that you can't do it as that it doesn't doing anything
useful if you do (that is, a single process services all the
connections).

> I figure even with the NSPR work that we'll still support models which use
> fork() on unix to create a few heavy-weight processes and then schedule
> threads within those (the "MSM" model in my proposal for example).  But I
> don't think this is possible at all on WIN32.  any win32 experts care to
> enlighten me?

It is not easily possible - you _may_ be able to do it by some other
method, but not by simply running multiple processes hanging off a
single socket.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|  Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |Apache-SSL author    http://www.apache-ssl.org/
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache

Mime
View raw message