Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 22:27:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Diekhans <markd@Grizzly.COM> To: kriston@ibm.net Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD A Solution For Business Message-ID: <199805230527.WAA03120@osprey.grizzly.com> In-Reply-To: <3626-Sat23May1998005302-0400-kriston@ibm.net> References: <01bd85e0$2dccb1c0$f820aace@eliot.pacbell.net> <199805230337.UAA02883@osprey.grizzly.com> <3626-Sat23May1998005302-0400-kriston@ibm.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Kris, >Mark Diekhans writes: >> >> o A port of Netscape enterprise server would be a plus. Apache is >> good, but there is a perceived need for a threaded server for >> scalability. Maybe more preception than reality. > >With just user-level threads, this isn't going to buy you much. But >that's okay because almost nobody buys multiprocessor Pentium systems >at this moment, so you'll get efficient use of resources in the web >server process. That will change and it would help to have >kernel-level threads to take advantage of the extra processor(s) if >that web server were threaded; until then fork/exec is better for >multiprocessor systems -- at least the way I understand it. The rational here is that user-level threads eliminate much of the process context switching overhead. Not having seen or done performance measurements, I can't say if its significant to a http server or not, I discussed it with people in charge of selecting systems who felt a threaded server was required (but then again, they didn't have any measurements to back it up). Personally, I would just add another pentium running apache if the first one got bogged down. Mark To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805230527.WAA03120>