Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 14874 invoked by uid 500); 20 Sep 2001 18:42:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 14837 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2001 18:42:02 -0000 From: "Joshua Slive" To: Subject: RE: [PATCH] update to default worker MPM config to match MaxClients fix Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:41:35 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <00dc01c14200$23a650e0$0c381b09@sashimi> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > -----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.