[ Sorry for accidentally spamming people on the
list. I was ticked off by this "benchmark",
and accidentally forgot to clean up the reply
names. I won't let it happen again :( ]
Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Ken Williams wrote:
Well then, why
Gunther Birznieks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But instead he crafted an experiment to show that in this particular case
(and some applications do satisfy this case) SpeedyCGI has a particular
benefit.
And what do I have to do to repeat it? Unlearn everything in Stas'
guide?
This is why
At 09:53 AM 12/21/00 -0500, Joe Schaefer wrote:
[ Sorry for accidentally spamming people on the
list. I was ticked off by this "benchmark",
and accidentally forgot to clean up the reply
names. I won't let it happen again :( ]
Not sure what you mean here. Some people like the
"KW" == Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
KW Well then, why doesn't somebody just make an Apache directive to
KW control how hits are divvied out to the children? Something like
According to memory, mod_perl 2.0 uses a most-recently-used strategy
to pull perl interpreters from the thread
FYI --
Sam just posted this to the speedycgi list just now.
X-Authentication-Warning: www.newlug.org: majordom set sender to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_perl with scripts
that contain un-shared memory
Date: Wed, 20 Dec
Well then, why doesn't somebody just make an Apache directive to control how
hits are divvied out to the children? Something like
NextChild most-recent
NextChild least-recent
NextChild (blah...)
but more well-considered in name. Not sure whether a config directive
would do it, or
