httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Ames <>
Subject Re: Tag 2.0.21 was Re: daedalus is back on 2.0.21-dev
Date Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:32:01 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 12:03:16PM -0400, Greg Ames wrote:
> > What about the threaded mpm?  I can't tell you how it's doing in
> > production, unfortunately.  Yeah, I know a number of folks have changes
> > they'd like to see in it, but as far as I know it's in better shape than
> > it was in our 2.0.16 beta.
> >
> > tag?
> +0 (not that my vote is binding in this tree).
> I'm also not sure of the impact from inherit in the APR code has been
> tested yet.  Wouldn't a pipe (i.e. POD) need to have the inherit flag
> explicitly set?  

The PoD is working correctly, since graceful restart and
perform_idle_server_maintenance are both working.  

> I think it'd be nice if we shipped a decent default threaded config
> (i.e. don't have it spawn 3 child processes and kill off 2 immediately
> because the config is lame) and fix the POD reading in threaded.
> Neither are showstoppers though (the POD one may cause end-user
> problems though).
> I probably wouldn't pay attention to threaded MPM until we have the SMS
> code active by default.  Once we've removed the per-process allocation
> mutex, we can start to focus on getting other things right in there.

Again, let's compare the current cvs tree (including the threaded mpm)
to our one and only 2.0 beta.  I believe the current code wins hands
down, or am I missing something?  

Yeah, we have bugs to fix and improvements to make. But there are folks
out there who need threaded and want a beta/binaries.  As I recall,
there were enough bugs with threaded in 2.0.16 so that I wouldn't
recommend it to anybody who can only deal with binaries.


View raw message