"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
>
> I feel I've lost that argument two weeks ago. Folks want
> 'abstract' concepts so they don't have to tweak anything
> between firing up a pthread, pervhost, etc.
People test-driving the various models to see which one
works best in their particular environments would probably
have difficulty caring less about the nomenclature. They
have a goal of serving N+ concurrent requests in the most
efficient manner; they almost certain do *not* care what
the details of the various methods are. And having to
change the settings of meaninglessly-named (to them)
directives just to do the test-driving of each model.. that
is not going to be popular.
I would guess that the above describes at least 50% of the
Apache userbase.
The n models are:
1. one worker per process (prefork);
2. one worker per thread;
3. upto(N) workers in each of upto(M) processes (perchild);.
How about MaxWorkers and MaxProcesses? The latter would be
simply ignored for threaded and prefork (or maybe a warning
message for prefork if specified and different from MaxWorkers).
Do we need to actually specify a workers/process setting for
perchild? Can it not be heuristically derived from these two
settings?
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/>
"Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>
ApacheCon 2001!
Four tracks with over 70+ sessions. Free admission to exhibits
and special events - keynote presentations by John 'maddog' Hall
and David Brin. Special thanks to our Platinum Sponsors IBM and
Covalent, Gold Sponsor Thawte, and Silver Sponsor Compaq. Attend
only Apache event designed and fully supported by the members of
the ASF. See more information and register at <http://ApacheCon.Com/>!
