httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <>
Subject RE: Regarding worker MPM and queue_push/pop
Date Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:07:56 GMT
I sure would do that sometime today. The leader probably uses some
apr_atomic stuff - and I'm trying to see if I can use IA64 native code to do
the atomics.

For people at ease with visual stuff, here's the CPU performance that I'm
getting with worker MPM and SPECweb99_SSL.
Something looks is terribly wrong.

MPM: worker

StartServers           1
MaxClients          2000
MinSpareThreads      500
MaxSpareThreads     2000
ThreadsPerChild      500


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brian Pane []
>Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:52 AM
>Subject: Re: Regarding worker MPM and queue_push/pop
>On Dec 4, 2003, at 9:18 AM, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Cliff Woolley []
>> [SNIP]
>>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:
>>>> instead of having the worker threads compete for the
>>> incoming connections
>>>> (using ap_queue_pop .. and hence mutex_lock), assign the
>>> connection to the
>>>> next free thread on a round-robin basis - if I'm not 
>wrong, zeus does
>>>> something similar.
>>> Isn't that what the leader-follower MPM does?
>> Ah.. I didn't see the leader-follower stuff (I'm probably 
>too focussed 
>> on
>> worker MPM). Thanks for pointing it out !
>> Has there been any analysis done on the leader-follower MPM already ?
>I did some comparisons between leader-follower and worker a long
>time ago.  At that time, worker was slightly faster than 
>on multiprocessor Solaris servers, but the code has changed since
>then, and the performance characteristics of both are likely to vary
>among operating systems.  If you have the time to test it, it wouldn't
>hurt to compare leader/follower to worker in your current benchmark

View raw message