httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r264737 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/stopping.xml
Date Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:50:21 GMT
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:37:07PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 06:00:47PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 05:25:07PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > > > This has all sorts of consequences, the most annoying of which is that
> > > > both "stop" and "graceful-stop" actually won't kill CGI processes when
> > > > using a threaded MPM/cgid.
> > > 
> > > So is mod_cgid still the default CGI module for worker because there 
> > > once existed some ye-olde-Unixes which had an "interesting" fork() 
> > > implementation?  Given that POSIX has mandated since 2001 or whatever 
> > > that fork() duplicates only the calling thread, is there any 
> > > disadvantage to using mod_cgi in all MPMs on modern platforms?
> > 
> > Can't think of any, and performance is easy to measure. 
> 
> Just some comparitive ab's, all with Linux 2.6.13, NPTL, 
> 
> ab -n 5000 -c 10 http://localhost/cgi-bin/test-cgi
> 
> 
> 	MPM		cgid		cgi
> 
> 	worker		594.28 		588.69	req/sec. 
> 
> 	event		665.11  	661.28 	req/sec. 
> 
> 	leader		598.14 		592.86 	req/sec. 
> 
> 	threadpool	594.94 		591.87 	req/sec. 
> 
> There seems to be a very consistent .1% advantage to using mod_cgid, for
> me at least. Of course, cgid eats a process table entry and some memory,
> but fork()'ing a plain process does seem to be less overhead.
> 
> -- 
> Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net

Mime
View raw message