Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> Geez, I always forget something :(
>
> You are right. I forgot to mention that this was a scenario for the 23 Mb
> of unshared memory. I just wanted to give an example. Still somehow I'm
> almost sure that there are servers where even with sharing in place, the
> hypothetical scenario I've presented is quite possible.
>
> Anyway, it's just another patent for squeezing some more juice from your
> hardware without upgrading it.
>
Your scenario would be more believable with 5M unshared, even
after doing ones best to share everything. This is pretty typical
when connecting to databases, as the database connections cannot
be shared, and especially DB's like Oracle take lots of RAM
per connection.
I'm not sure that your scenario is worthwhile if someone does
a good job preloading / sharing code across the forks, and
the difference will really be how much of the code gets dirty
while you run things, which can be neatly tuned with MaxRequests.
Interesting & novel approach though. I would bet that if people
went down this path, they would really end up on different machines
per web application, or even different web clusters per application ;)
-- Joshua
_________________________________________________________________
Joshua Chamas Chamas Enterprises Inc.
NodeWorks >> free web link monitoring Huntington Beach, CA USA
http://www.nodeworks.com 1-714-625-4051
