On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 02:31:20PM -0400, Greg Ames wrote: > So (in my mind anyway) the impact of this problem on a production server > is mimimal. Yeah, maybe we should do something about it someday, but it > shouldn't stop us from releasing a better beta. I didn't say it'd stop us from releasing a better beta (I did say +0). I'm just saying that I wouldn't count on the threaded MPM for much. If you want httpd-2.0 on production, you want prefork. =) -- justin
- daedalus is back on 2.0.21-dev Greg Ames
- Re: daedalus is back on 2.0.21-dev Greg Ames
- Re: daedalus is back on 2.0.21-dev Cliff Woolley
- Tag 2.0.21 was Re: daedalus is back on 2.0.2... Justin Erenkrantz
- Re: Tag 2.0.21 was Re: daedalus is back ... Greg Ames
- Re: Tag 2.0.21 was Re: daedalus is b... Ryan Bloom
- Re: Tag 2.0.21 was Re: daedalus... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: Tag 2.0.21 was Re: daed... Ryan Bloom
- Re: Tag 2.0.21 was Re: daedalus is b... Justin Erenkrantz
- Re: Tag 2.0.21 was Re: daedalus... Greg Ames
- Re: Tag 2.0.21 was Re: daed... Justin Erenkrantz
- Re: Tag 2.0.21 was Re: daedalus... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: Tag 2.0.21 was Re: daed... Justin Erenkrantz
- Pool allocation bottlenecks... Brian Pane
- Re: Tag 2.0.21 was Re: daed... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- RE: daedalus is back on 2.0.21-dev Gonyou, Austin
- Re: daedalus is back on 2.0.21-dev Justin Erenkrantz
- Re: daedalus is back on 2.0.21-dev Ian Holsman
- RE: daedalus is back on 2.0.21-dev Gonyou, Austin
- Re: daedalus is back on 2.0.21-dev Justin Erenkrantz
