Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 23054 invoked by uid 500); 15 Aug 2002 15:30:55 -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 23041 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2002 15:30:55 -0000 Message-ID: <3D5BC93A.6040700@apache.org> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:31:06 -0700 From: Brian Pane User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: perchild on FreeBSD 5? References: <101137626812.20020815121344@buz.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Gabriel Ambuehl wrote: >Hi Rasmus Lerdorf, >you wrote. > > > >>>time spent in mutex-protected code is 99% of the total request processing >>>time, then the server will scale poorly. The key success factor is to not >>>use libraries that require locking for lengthy operations. >>> >>> >RL> If, for example, we have to mutex an entire database library and every > >So it is expected to break up, for example, PHP in libraries that do >support threading explicitely and such that don't or aren't known to >do it instead of having a mutex around all of PHP? > No, not at all. The library partitioning is irrelevant: it's functions, not libraries, that have to be wrapped in mutexes if they're not thread-safe. Brian