On 3/6/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Garrett Rooney wrote: > > On 3/6/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
The problem is that with the way mod_proxy currently works there isn't any way to do that, at least as far as I can tell. It seems like it will require us to move away from having mod_proxy manage the back end connections, and if we do that then we're back to the "what exactly is the advantage to using mod_proxy again?" question. -garrett
