[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > I've been toying with the idea of making the accept mutex selection
> > a runtime rather than compile-time option. This makes sense to me
> > for certain applications. At present, however, APR decides the mutex
> > type and Apache uses that. So we either need some way for APR to
> > determine all possible available options, and then "enable" them
> > (provide the required calls) and then have an Apache directive do the
> > required right-thing to pick the one you want.
> >
> > One way would be to add another argument to the APR call that defines
> > the lock type (enum would be best, 'natch). Whatcha think?
>
> Could be cool. But a quick question, what do you expect to gain with
> this? Is it for experimentation, or do you believe that having multiple
> mutex types will be useful in the same production server? Would this mean
> that the Apache code would need to try multiple kinds of locks before it
> necessarily found one that worked?
Take Solaris... Up to a certain number of CPUs/concurrent
connections, Apache works best when the accept mutex is XXX.
Above that level Apache works best when the accept mutex is YYY.
(I don't remember what XXX and YYY are (fcntl, pthread cross-process,
whatever) but this is a real occurrence.)
Also on Solaris... The fcntl() (IIRC) support in the kernel doesn't
get along with Apache + a certain third-pardy module. But fcntl() is
best for most configurations.
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
