httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>
Subject Re: beta?
Date Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:03:17 GMT
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 04:02:23PM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> mod_status is a big PITA with the MPMs.

I think that the problem could be simplified greatly by eliminating
some of the flexibility that was one of the goals of the current 2.0
status stuff. If things like multiprotocol support and arbitrary
module columns are eliminated, then there can be a fixed set of status
fields, like in 1.3, and a lot of problems go away. Not that I think
that's necessarily a good thing, but it's better than what's there now.

Another possibility is to change the status API to be something
provided by a module instead of the MPMs. This module could spawn a
seperate process to handle storage and retrieval of the status values.
Then the silly shared memory limits go away. This is basically what
Dean wants. :) The module could even store these status fields in an
SQL database if we wanted to get scary. It's easier now that (if I
read things correctly) cross-module calls have been standardized. This
would probably be a post-beta thing though.

> The threaded MPM should take a
> few hours, just enough time to test that SuEXEC is working correctly.

Does FreeBSD suffer from the fork() delays in threaded apps? If not,
can it just run mod_cgi and avoid the problem entirely?


Mime
View raw message