Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 13:41:07 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: ahill@interconnect.com.au (Anthony Hill) Cc: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu, licau@ebs08.eb.uah.edu, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: inetd/deamon Message-ID: <199601302041.NAA07252@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.960130095455.22782A-100000@tulpi.interconnect.com.au> from "Anthony Hill" at Jan 30, 96 10:06:06 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > apache as a deamon - the docs recommend against using apache from inetd. > > > (Anyone know why ?) > > > > Apache can manage multiple connections better than inetd can -- Apache > > spawns off 4 or so instances; inetd spawns 1 for every connection, which > > can get costly in terms of time and memory. > > Wouldnt the habit of spawning more children than is actually required > mean that while running as a deamon is more efficiant time wise, but that > running under inetd is more efficiant memory wise ? Is 1004 processes significantly less efficient than 1000 processes? 8-). > Also do you know if there are any other reasons for not running apache > from inetd ? (The site I run is VERY lightly hit - and this is not about > to change) I figure the overhead of having httpd's running all the time > is not worth the small improvement in response when is actually used, > unless of course, other factors are also at play here. Inetd could decide that the httpd was "respawnging too rapidly" and choke it off, for one. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- 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?199601302041.NAA07252>