httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>
Subject Re: [PATCH] update to default worker MPM config to match MaxClients fix
Date Thu, 20 Sep 2001 17:44:10 GMT
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 01:19:39PM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:aaron@clove.org]
> 
> >  <IfModule worker.c>
> > -StartServers         3
> > -MaxClients           8
> > -MinSpareThreads      5
> > +StartServers         2
> > +MaxClients         150
> > +MinSpareThreads     25
> >  MaxSpareThreads     75
> >  ThreadsPerChild     25
> >  MaxRequestsPerChild  0
> 
> I think this is going in the right direction.  Two comments:
> 
> 1. MinSpareThreads is way too high. There is no reason to have 25 idle
> threads hanging around at all times.  The original figure of 5 seems fine to
> me.

Threads are cheap, but child processes are expensive. You may be correct,
but I wanted to make sure that this thing responds quickly to load spikes
(that is afterall what the worker MPM is for -- scalability on big iron :).
I would not object to a lower MinSpareThreads value.

> 2. Naming:
> I think we should define Server="thing capable of serving requests" and
> completely get rid of "Child" which is ambiguous.  Then we can change
> MinSpareThreads -> MinSpareServers
> MaxSpareThreads -> MaxSpareServers
> StartServers -> StartProcesses
> ThreadsPerChild -> ThreadsPerProcess
> MaxRequestsPerChild -> MaxRequestsPerServer
> 
> The first two are clearly better because they are more consistent with
> prefork and easier to understand.
> 
> The third one is less consistent with prefork, but is much less ambiguous.
> 
> The last one I'm not sure of, because I don't know whether this is actually
> measured per thread or per process.  Perhaps it should be
> MaxRequestsPerProcess.
> 
> This has been hashed over already a couple times.  I hope what I am
> proposing here is close to what we were talking about before.  I know there
> was a suggestion to use "worker" for what I am using "server" for.

I'm going to stay out of this one. I just spent the last few days trying to
force those square-peg names we have into the round hole in my head, so
you've got no complaints from me. It might suit us better, however, if we
try to do a higher-level evaluation of all the MPM directives (especially
their definitions in our docs and config comments).

-aaron

Mime
View raw message