httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Stoddard" <b...@wstoddard.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] update to default worker MPM config to match MaxClients fix
Date Thu, 20 Sep 2001 18:59:24 GMT
Just an FYI... I was an advocate of pretty much your earlier suggestion (the thing that
handles a request is a 'server'). That was shot down (forget by who). I actually prefer
'server'. FWIW :-)

Bill

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:bill@wstoddard.com]
>
> > This last one is inconsistent with your other changes.  In the
> > threaded MPM, a 'Server' by
> > your defn is a thread. MaxRequestsPerChild is used to limit the
> > number of requests a
> > 'process' serves before going away.
>
> Yes.  That's right.
>
> >
> > In past discussions, we have almost settled on the notion of a
> > "worker" as being the thing
> > capable of serving a request.
>
> Fine.  I don't mind "worker" instead of "server".  (The only disadvantage is
> that prefork needs to change.  But that's not a big deal.)
>
> I think we should also rename MaxClients to MaxWorkers.
>
> > StartWorkers - ??? What do we want the option to do? Startup this
> > number of worker threads
> > or startup this number of child processes?
>
> I would like to see StartWorkers which would behave very similarly to how
> Aaron has designed MaxClients/MaxWorkers; ie. it would automatically set the
> number of child processes to launch to guarentee StartWorkers total threads.
> I do, however, see a potential problem with configuration getting fragile
> with all this stuff going on behind the scenes.
>
> To sum up, my proposal for worker is then
> StartWorkers              50
> MaxWorkers               150
> MinSpareWorkers           10
> MaxSpareWorkers           50
> WorkersPerProcess         25
> MaxRequestsPerProcess      0
>
> Perfork could work exactly the same with the absence of WorkersPerProcess.
> PerChild would need a little more thought.
>
> These are all just name changes except StartWorkers and MaxWorkers which use
> Aaron's logic to derive process numbers.
>
> > Okay, changing topics only slightly... how about we replace
> > MinSpare[Threads|Servers|Workers] and
> > MaxSpare[Threads|Servers|workers] with a single
> > directive, Spare[Threads|Servers|Workers]?
>
> I don't understand that.  There needs to be some notion of slack, so that
> the server is not constantly starting and killing threads/processes to keep
> the correct number of spares.
>
> Joshua.
>


Mime
View raw message