From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Apr  4 06:56:59 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA11371
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 06:56:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wgold.demon.co.uk (wgold.demon.co.uk [158.152.96.124])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA11354
          for <FreeBSD-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 06:56:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wgold.demon.co.uk by wgold.demon.co.uk (NTMail 3.02.10) with ESMTP id fa001305 for <FreeBSD-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:54:55 +0100
Message-ID: <3344CFEE.589F@wgold.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 10:54:54 +0100
From: James Mansion <james@wgold.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Westongold Ltd
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: FreeBSD-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: apache like preforking apps and high loads
References: <199704031357.PAA10893@gvr.win.tue.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Info: Westongold Ltd: +44 1992 620025 www.westongold.com
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Guido van Rooij wrote:
> 
> When looking at Apacha like applications, one often sees extermely high
> load averages. Apache preforks a number of processes that all block
> on accept(). When a request comes in, all process are woken up and the
> scheduler chooses one of the now runnable processes taht will succeed in
> the accept(). The other go back to sleep.

Silly question - why do they all get woken up?

(Not 'why does the current implementation do this' but 'is this
behaviour required'?)

James