Date: Tue, 9 May 95 10:57:06 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw (Brian Tao) Cc: nc@ai.net, Arjan.deVet@nl.cis.philips.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, Guido.VanRooij@nl.cis.philips.com Subject: Re: Apache + FreeBSD 2.0 benchmark results (fwd) Message-ID: <9505091657.AA02008@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.950509124729.26690D-100000@aries.ibms.sinica.edu.tw> from "Brian Tao" at May 9, 95 12:48:46 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Yes. So are the Apache, WN and pre-1.4 NCSA servers. I needed a > name for servers which forked off a new process for each incoming > request, and just "forking server" was too easily confused with > "pre-forking server", so I called them "demand forking". Dunno if > that's the correct term or not, but I'm sticking with it. ;-) The correct term for "pre-forking" is "spawn-ahead". Actually, a lot of UNIX kernels keep process templates around, which are most of the generic process information but none of the specific so as to optimize forking benchmarks (hint, hint). Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9505091657.AA02008>