From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 1 02:05:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9049616A4CE for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 02:05:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from carver.gumbysoft.com (carver.gumbysoft.com [66.220.23.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E3943D2F for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 02:05:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dwhite@gumbysoft.com) Received: by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1E9C672DF4; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:05:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C9DB72DF2; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:05:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:05:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White To: Aaron Bannert In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040630190307.Q66769@carver.gumbysoft.com> References: <40E26F4A.80004@fer.hr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Apache2 threaded MPM? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 02:05:47 -0000 On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Aaron Bannert wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2004, at 12:44 AM, Ivan Voras wrote: > > > Can apache2 be run on FreeBSD 4.x using a threaded MPM (e.g. > > "mpm_worker")? Is anybody using this in production? > > There are some serious problems with FreeBSD 4.x's thread support that > cause Apache's worker MPM to fail in strange and horrible ways. It is > possible to force Apache to build the worker MPM under FreeBSD 4.x, but > you have to hack around the safeguards we put in that disallow this. > Even if you manage to get it to work I'd completely avoid it for > production machines. I've heard good reports from people running worker > under 5.x though. Yes, the threaded MPMs are MUCH better under 5.x, which has proper kernel-based thread support. On 4.x, its a userland scheduler running as a single process (libc_r), and performance _SUCKS_. -- Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite@gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.org