On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:09 PM, David Aronchick <aronch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hadn't thought of the fact that apache would be architected to use its > multiple threads as an internal housekeeping (instead of just to allow > parallelization of requests). > You misunderstood me. I don't know that the extra threads you're seeing are housekeeping threads. That is simply one plausible explanation. > My motivation behind moving the processes to be so low is that I'm trying > to explore Apache's suitability for use in a Docker container, in the > "Docker way" - minimal processes per containers, that, when the process > failed for any reason, the entire container is killed, and you spin up many > containers to accommodate that. I think this is the point where I give up, > and just spend the time porting this app to nginx. > I don't understand what the problem is. If you're starting a single-program to do exactly one task (e.g., server individual HTTP requests serially) then what does it matter if the program requires one, two or three threads to do the job? What if performing the desired task required two cooperating processes? It seems to me you're confusing a guideline (e.g., minimize the number of processes per container) for a mandate (e.g., have only one process per container). -- Kurtis Rader Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank
