How does this problem relate to IE 6.0? IE 6.0 is a dangerous advent to the
list of browsers.
--
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Thorpe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 1:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: KeepAlive and IE, again...
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
> >
> > > (If there's Apache developers listening, this is also why
> threading in 2.0 won't
> > > solve the problems of 1.3, it'll just scale them back a
> bit - threads aren't
> > > free, they're just a small linear factor cheaper than
> processes - please support
> > > non-blocking I/O too, please!).
> >
> > This has been discussed on new-httpd in the past. But this is not a
> > simple prospect... it would require some pretty major changes.
> > Nevertheless, several developers have expressed an interest
> in giving it a
> > shot in future versions of Apache (though NOT 2.0)...
>
> For the immediate future at least, a process/thread module (I
> forget the acroynm
> that was coined in Apache2 for such things, MTM or something
> like that?) that
> uses GNU Pth would I guess achieve some of what's required.
> GNU Pth, IIRC, fakes
> threads by replacing basically all "interruptable" system
> calls with Pth
> equivalents so that processing can shift between contexts
> (eg. selects, reads,
> writes, sleeps, etc etc all hook back to the Pth scheduler).
> In this way, only
> one thread/process is actually in use, but code written to
> *think* it's running
> in multiple threads can (be made to) work in this scanario
> too. It'd still be
> bulkier than application code designed to work in a
> non-blocking manner, but
> probably less bulky than using distinct real (kernel) threads
> per-connection. Do
> you think Apache could be coerced to slot into such a model?
>
> Of course, the follow up question is then; could you run
> "fake" (GNU Pth)
> threads inside a single real (kernel) thread, and have
> multiple kernel threads
> running in each process, and of course run multiple
> processes. That'd be one
> hell of a hybrid. Then of course, we could ask if some IPC
> mechanism exists so
> certain processes could serve specific types of requests and
> be folded down to
> different user privileges than other processes (eg. to put
> volatile/leaky
> serving inside different processes with only a few threads
> each, and to put
> stable/lightweight serving in other processes with a lot of threads).
>
> So, has someone started an Apache 5.0 branch yet? :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org
> User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
______________________________________________________________________
Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
