On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 04:52:50PM -0700, Sean Reifschneider wrote: [snip] > The first thing to do about this if you want to implement it is to > find out exactly WHY apache chose to do it that way. What were they > hoping to resolve with that, and did it actually achieve the desired > results? In Apache, pre-forking is useful because it is one big fat whale. If you take a look at WN, for example (http://www.wnserver.org/), that doesn't pre-fork, you'll see that it shows similar or better performance. Greetz, Peter -- dataloss networks '/ignore-ance is bliss' - me 'Het leven is een stuiterbal, maar de mijne plakt aan t plafond!' - me
- Re: high performance configs [was: Blo... Sean Reifschneider
- Re: high performance configs [was: Blocked... Sean Reifschneider
- Re: high performance configs [was: Blo... Markus Stumpf
- Re: high performance configs [was... Sean Reifschneider
- Re: high performance configs ... Markus Stumpf
- Re: high performance configs ... Sean Reifschneider
- Re: high performance configs [was: Blocked pip... Greg Cope
- Re: high performance configs [was: Blocked... Sean Reifschneider
- Re: high performance configs [was: Blocked pipe to qmai... Jeff Mayzurk
- Re: high performance configs [was: Blocked pipe to... Sean Reifschneider
- Re: high performance configs [was: Blocked pip... Peter van Dijk
- Re: high performance configs [was: Blocked... Matt Brown
- Re: high performance configs [was: Blo... Peter van Dijk
- Re: high performance configs [was: Blocked pipe to qmai... Jeff Mayzurk
