httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mendonce, Kiran (STSD)" <kiran.mendo...@hp.com>
Subject RE: Question on multi-process CGID
Date Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:54:07 GMT
I am looking into the probable bottlenecks. 

Agreed that the worker MPM has its advantages. But for a customer who is
being asked to move to Apache 2.0, we are falling short on the
performance and that makes it hard to sell. Since worker + mod_cgid was
supposed to improve performance, how is it that the benchmarking numbers
fall short ? 

Regards,
Kiran

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Querna [mailto:chip@force-elite.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:44 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Question on multi-process CGID

Mendonce, Kiran (STSD) wrote:
>  
>> It depends on where the real bottleneck is.
>>
>> Most of the time, if you are unable to cope with the volume of 
>> incoming
> CGI requests, its because your CGIs themselves are slow to start.
>> For example, if your CGIs are coded in Perl, just starting them can
> take a long time, which is independent of mod_cgi(d).
>> If your CGIs are written in C, then the startup time is minimal.
> 
> No, the CGIs are not in perl. They are either shell scripts or C 
> programs. Strangely, Apache 1.3 performs better than Apache 2.0.xx 
> with the worker MPM when the CGIs are C programs or shell scripts. We 
> did the benchmarking with the ab utility. Anyone has similar 
> experiences ? And any idea why that should be the case ?

I believe you really need to look at identifying the bottleneck. I have
a hard time believing the speed of fork()+execv() is truly the cause of
your problems.

Last time I tested 2.x, C-programs for me were about 1-2% slower with
the Worker MPM, compared to the prefork MPM+mod_cgi.

I don't consider it significant, because of the other advantages to the
worker MPM.

Mime
View raw message