httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dovid Zirkind" <do...@tig.com.au>
Subject Re: Server directives
Date Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:50:52 GMT

B"H

hi,

whoops, sorry, i "replied" to the wrong message :-(

Bring Moshiach closer by doing acts of kindness!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dovid Zirkind" <dovid@tig.com.au>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Server directives


>
> B"H
>
> hi,
>
> F1/F2: Sounds right
> Y2K: I can picture it (and from an airline, it's scary)
> Hidden Options [or did i not send u that one
> http://www.attrition.org/gallery/errors/hidden_options.gif ]: seems to be
> hidden :-) (i dont think it's real, but when u use word u start to think
> that these settings are hidden _somewhere_ :-)
>
> Bring Moshiach closer by doing acts of kindness!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Ames" <gregames@remulak.net>
> To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 2:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Server directives
>
>
> > Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > >
> > >  I like (though not addicted to) the idea
> > > of keeping the directive names the same (or nearly so) across MPMs.  I
> like
> > > the following:
> > >
> > > StartWorkers - workers are processes in the prefork mpm and threads in
> > > threaded mpms
> > > MaxWorkers - upper limit on the max number of workers
> > > MinSpareWorkers - minimum number of idle workers to maintain
> > > MaxSpareWorkers - max, number of idle workers to maintain
> >
> > so far so good...
> >
> > > MaxWorkersPerChildProcess - Not a great name. This directive only
> applies to a
> > > threaded MPM. a.k.a, threadsperchild.
> >
> > This one bugs me a little.  In this case, we should make it clear that
> > we are talking about threads.  It could be important.  I know at least
> > one OS that has constraints on the number of threads per process.  How
> > about just "MaxThreadsPerProcess" or "MaxWorkerThreadsPerProcess"?  I
> > like the first one better myself.  But the second may tie things
> > together better for a newbie, and if we ever have a few specialized
> > non-worker threads, it would be clear that they aren't counted in the
> > limit.  I don't see a need to keep the "Child" term.
> >
> > >
> > > Notice that for a threaded MPM, you have no direct way to specify
number
> of
> > > child processes started. Number of child processes is
> > > StartWorkers/MaxWorkersPerChildProcess.
> > >
> >
> > I don't see a problem with that.
> >
> > Greg
> >
>
>


Mime
View raw message