On Jan 8, 2004, at 2:12 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 20:57 08/01/2004, George Schlossnagle wrote:
On Jan 8, 2004, at 1:39 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Personally, I'm not convinced this is that case, even if the people we're dealing with run thousands of Apache processes per server (which they do).
Unless they're running thousands of apache server instances (not just children), shouldn't the memory sit in shared pages and thus be completely insignificant?
And if they are running 1000s of instances per server, perhaps they have an architectural problem that this band-aid won't fix? :)
Obviously we're talking about httpd children and not 1,000 roots... Anyway, depending on the module, if there's any sort of RINIT initialization, the CoW trick doesn't work very well and it consumes some per-process memory. There's also the function table which is not shared and will grow by a few dozen kilobytes thanks to the extra functions, which is not shared across children.
The RINIT issue makes good sense. In regards to the couple of kilobytes for the function table - that seems really inconsequential to me. couple k * couple thousand children is a couple megs. Hardly much to fret about in an installation as large as you are saying.
george
p.s. Is there a technical reason the function table could be shareable across children? I can't think of one of the top of my head.
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
