Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_perl withscripts that contain un-shared memory

[Buddy Lee Haystack]

Does this mean that mod_perl's memory hunger will curbed in the future using some of 
the neat tricks in Speedycgi?


Perrin Harkins wrote:
> 
> Sam Horrocks wrote:
> >  Don't agree.  You're equating the model with the implemntation.
> >  Unix processes model concurrency, but when it comes down to it, if you
> >  don't have more CPU's than processes, you can only simulate concurrency.
> [...]
> >  This url:
> >
> >     http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/linuxkernel/chapter/ch10.html
> >
> >  says the default timeslice is 210ms (1/5th of a second) for Linux on a PC.
> >  There's also lots of good info there on Linux scheduling.
> 
> Thanks for the info.  This makes much more sense to me now.  It sounds
> like using an MRU algrorithm for process selection is automatically
> finding the sweet spot in terms of how many processes can run within the
> space of one request and coming close to the ideal of never having
> unused processes in memory.  Now I'm really looking forward to getting
> MRU and shared memory in the same package and seeing how high I can
> scale my hardware.
> 
> - Perrin

-- 
www.RentZone.org