Re: threads or processes?
Re: threads or processes?
- Subject: Re: threads or processes?
- From: Andrew Farmer <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:07:45 -0800
On 29 Jan 06, at 16:44, Michael Rothwell wrote:
On Jan 28, 2006, at 11:25 AM, John Stiles wrote:
At any rate, I agree that one process per connection is expensive.
However, it's what Apache used to do IIRC (and maybe still does, I
don't know), so it can't be /that/ awful.
A machine running Apache with >100 child processes is probably a
busy dedicated webserver, not some guy's desktop running an
application.
Also note that Apache 2.x uses threads instead of child processes*.
The only reason Apache1 used multiple processes was because threads
weren't widely available when it was written.
*: Unless you're using PHP, because PHP isn't threadsafe (!)
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden