On Thursday 29 November 2001 09:41 am, Brian Pane wrote: > Ryan Bloom wrote: > >On Thursday 29 November 2001 09:20 am, Brian Pane wrote: > >> From a performance perspective, the two limitations that I see in > >>the current worker implementation are: > >> * We're basically guaranteed to have to do an extra context switch on > >> each connection, in order to pass the connection from the listener > >> thread to a worker thread. > >> * The passing of a pool from listener to worker makes it very tricky > >> to optimize away all the mutexes within the pools. > >> > >>So...please forgive me if this has already been considered and dismissed > >>a long time ago, but...why can't the listener and worker be the same > >>thread? > > > >That's where we were before worker, with the threaded MPM. There are > >thread management issues with that model, and it doesn't scale as well. > > Weren't the thread management problems with the threaded MPM > related specifically to shutdown? If it's just shutdown that's > a problem, it may be possible to solve it.
The problem is that without a master thread to manage the other threads, things start to fall apart. shutdown, restart they both didn't really work well. ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
