Ray Cote wrote:
>
> At 2:59 PM -0400 6/12/01, Bill Sconce wrote:
[...]
> > o This technique incurs the overhead of an additional
> > process (probably a small price, especially for
> > portability).
>
> Probably not an issue with hand-run or occasionally-run scripts,
> but that second process will really start to add up in a cgi
> environment on a heavily hit site.
> Ray
Right you are. Where process forking _is_ an overhead issue
performance will be worth real engineering, including good
attention to paths. Is it fair to say that "real engineering" for
performance in a Web site will often be at the cost of having
to be system specific - that is, at the cost of giving up
portability?
(I wouldn't want to run a system where EVERY fork involved
doubling processes, either.)
BTW, the problem Bruce and I were tackling was somewhere in
between - a production system, but not a Web site.
Maybe I should have said "probably a small price, especially
where portability is a really important requirement"?
-Bill
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
