Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
I know Dan has commented on this kind of thing before, and I'm sure
he'd actually tested it. The gist of his comments as I remember was
that fork() and exec() have gotten an unjustified bad reputation among
UNIX programmers which they DO NOT DESERVE. Forking a small process
is quite cheap, and exec is even cheaper.
I think expending effort on an ugly hack of an optimization like this
is poorly considered when there are far more fundamental causes of
poor performance than this in qmail.
-Matt
--
| Matthew J. Brown - Senior Network Administrator - NBCi Shopping |
| 1983 W. 190th St, Suite 100, Torrance CA 90504 |
| Phone: (310) 538-7122 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Cell: (714) 457-1854 | Personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
