On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Charlie Brady wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Peter Eisch wrote: > > > ... and I have to go through some hoops to get it on there that include > > some various acknowledgements to the author. > > That's BS. Anyone is free to download tcpserver without any > acknowledgements. If you don't like the ucspi-tcp license you can use > ipsvd. > > But this is by the by, since forkserver doesn't use tcpserver. > > I think you mean to refer to supervise. If you don't like supervise's > license, use runit. If you don't like supervise/runit, start forkserver > from inittab. >
Check out http://pkgsrc.org/ and try and install tcpserver without jumping through hoops of license agreements. As I noted, forkserver was hit or miss without some safeguard to catch when it tanked. And it did. > > Then with forkserver I had to jump through some hoops to set up ulimit > > properly ... > > If ulimit bothers you, don't use it. > ...and... I don't. > > I have apache running on these systems already for other reasons ... > > Not everyone does. But your reasons for preferring one start script to > another are beside the point. I'm merely trying to discover the details > and the basis of assertions about performance. > The assertion about performance is that can get "Plugins already loaded" 150 times or so per child (just looking at one child in the live logs now). Maybe you have some specific metrics you'd like for me to gather? > > As to the overall efficiency and speed, I'd really figure that -async can > > lay a beat-down on anything that doesn't select() socket arrays. > > That's speculation, not benchmarking. > No, kind sir. Systems (W. Richard Stevens era) and kernel scheduler programmers understand this.
