httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Bloom <...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: Comments on accept-mutex/single-listen patch ??
Date Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:20:36 GMT

> > >why is SingleListen needed?
> >
> > Pretty much to make SINGLE_LISTEN runtime rather than compile
> > time... Again, to give the admins more control over how
> > Apache handles mutexing.
>
> I'm not totally against it, it just seems that it is for playing
> around (sort of like USE_NONE_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT) or trying to work
> around an Apache bug (i.e., maybe there is some platform/version where
> we're supposed to turn on SINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZE_ACCEPT but don't).
> Why can't they compile this in?  This would seem to be useful in
> extremely rare circumstances, and only for somebody who really knows
> what they are doing.

I disagree.  Compiling in SINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZE_ACCEPT means that
I have to no up front exactly how the server will be used.  What if I am compiling
one binary to be used on 50 machines (big fortune 2500 companies do this a lot,
so that they have a common interface).  On some of those machines (intranet),
I may only want one port, so I want to be able to use S_L_U_A, on others
(Internet), I want two ports (one SSL on regular), so I don't want to use S_L_U_A.

I have always thought that being able to turn this on and off at run-time would
be very cool and useful.

Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom				rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies			rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------

Mime
View raw message