Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
>
> > Trevor Phillips wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there any way to control which daemon handles a certain request with apache
> > > 1.x?
> > >
> > > eg; Out of a pool of 50 daemons, restricting accesses to a certain mod_perl
> > > application to 10 specific daemons would improve the efficiency of data cached
> > > in those processes.
> > >
> > Making sure the browser supports HTTP 1.1 (persistent connections) will
> > get you a lot better performance in many cases, since a particular user
> > will tend to keep hitting the same daemon, so that helps if they're
> > hitting the same or a related script over and over.
>
> I beg your pardon Keith, but probably in most cases this is a very bad
> suggestion.
No offense taken. Notice I said "many" cases, not "most" cases. ;-)
But your comment is appreciated: I certainly wouldn't want to mislead
anyone. It would be a very bad idea in a busy internet situation.
> By leaving the KeepAlive's on (I guess that's what you refer
> to by persistent connections)
I say "persistent connections" because in my case, I saw a difference
coming into play between Netscape and IE browsers - and it was because
IE supported HTTP 1.1, thus persistent connections. Yes, KeepAlive had
to be on to see the effect.
> you tie a server to a user. Which makes your
> service very unscalable. Given that you can afford X servers processes
> running, when X users will get their persistent connection open, your
> service becomes closed to any other users.
>
Of course. For me it was really very much a poor man's alternative to
setting aside a certain number of daemons for mod_perl. I really didn't
have enough system resources to do that!
>
> Your solution is good though if you know that you can have at most X users
> over a long time span. Which is usually the case on the intranet servers
> in the small companies.
Which was exactly my situation. :-)
