httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Bloom <>
Subject Re: Which thread/process
Date Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:10:58 GMT

> to be honest, i find your zillion of pipes solution to be extremely
> distasteful. 

Why?  The only one that are actually open, and the ones that are in use
currently.  When the server dies, they go away, and the purpose is
performance.  If I need to create three named pipes each time I want to
execute a cgi, that is wasted time.  I would much rather just open the
pipes and execute the cgi.

> am i missing/forgetting something obviously wrong with a single unix
> socket solution?  a daemon sitting on the unix socket doing accept() and
> fork()ing for each connection? 

That's what we have, except that instead of using a unix socket, I am
using an anonymous pipe for that initial communication.  It sounds like
you want the newly fork'ed process to then created three pipes for it's
communication to the child serving the request.  That's wasted time.
Everytime a server has to execute a cgi, this would have to be done.  It
seems so much more reasonable to just have the pipes available to be used.


Ryan Bloom
4205 S Miami Blvd	
RTP, NC 27709		It's a beautiful sight to see good dancers 
			doing simple steps.  It's a painful sight to
			see beginners doing complicated patterns.	

View raw message