httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Akins, Brian" <Brian.Ak...@turner.com>
Subject Re: Is async the answer?
Date Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:18:36 GMT
On 1/24/08 3:14 PM, "Olaf van der Spek" <olafvdspek@gmail.com> wrote:


> Working on making a FastCGI based setup the recommended approach
> instead of mod_php is probably more important then async. Actually,
> it's a prerequisite.

Fastcgi is the "recommended way of using php and httpd 2, AFAIK. Isn't it???

> Having 30k threads still seems like a waste of resource to me though.

Not if system is handling the load very well and "needs" 30k threads.  My
point was that 30k threads did not seem to be a "waste of resources."  I
doubt an async server would have used a significantly lower amount of
resources because worker did not use a significant amount of resources.

> What about a hybrid approach?
> Async for network IO and other stuff that doesn't require sync calls,
> worker threads for other parts?

That's kind of what I was thinking after Apachecon US this year.  I won't
speak for others, but it seemed reasonable to most.  However, after doing
several real world tests, I just don't honestly see that async will be a
huge improvement.  Please prove me wrong with real world results.  I'd be
more than happy to be wrong on this, really.

To be honest, I don't have strong feelings either way.  I was surprised by
my results.  I, now, think that completely rewriting the core to be async
*may be* a "waste of resources." If it fits nicely into some ideas on
reengineering buckets and brigades (ala serf stuff), and does not actually
decrease overall performance, then by all means do it.

Remember, I'm partially playing devil's advocate as well...

-- 
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies


Mime
View raw message