httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Should fastcgi be a proxy backend?
Date Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:36:52 GMT
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 3/6/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> 
>>Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> See, the issue for fastcgi isn't controlling persistence, persistent
> connections are fine as long as you're actually making use of the
> backend process, the problem is avoiding having more than one
> connection to a backend process that simply cannot handle multiple
> concurrent connections.
> 
> This seems to be a problem unique (so far anyway) to fastcgi.

So the issue is that mod_proxy_fastcgi needs to create a pool of single
process workers, and ensure that each has only one concurrent request,
right?  That's an issue for the proxy_fastcgi module, to mutex them all.

In the ASP.NET module, we create threads on the fly.  But this is why
I suggest being able to describe worker pools for a backend.

Then again the backend worker pool directives probably make just as much
sense as module-specific directives <shrug>.

Bill

Mime
View raw message