httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: Apache 2.0 ideas
Date Tue, 03 Nov 1998 17:16:45 GMT
I've fussed with the order here.

Dean Gaudet writes:
> ... We're not going to get anywhere further in
>the performance game without threads.  There's no point in even worrying
>about comparing the performance of unixes that lack threads... if they
>lack threads they probably also lack all the fundamental TCP/IP
>improvements necessary to even think about comparing HTTP performance.

Absolutely.

Dean Gaudet writes:
>On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Andrew Finkenstadt wrote:
...
>> Yes, it would leave behind many flavors of Unix that don't have good support
>> for shared memory, but it would beat the pants out of Microsoft.
>
>Why worry about shared memory?  

A thriving apache module ecology is very important.  Many interesting
modules want to reside in their own process.  An I/O pipeline with
useful semantic elements for modules lets Apache to what it should
do: protocol, fast I/O, and module orchestration.

Two large unix applications NEVER can be linked together into a single
address space because they all have such interestingly baroque things
built atop the read/write/select/errno API.  I.e. they all have 
different process models - more power to them.

The unix culture presumes that a pipeline is the right way to
do this.  A pipeline with shared memory offers the chance at
zero copy.

Shared memory is the pipeline advocates trying to sing a few verses
from the performance hymn book - oh happy day.  We should all sing
a few hymns from the modularity hymn book.

  - ben


Mime
View raw message