Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:12:28 +0200 From: stephane martin <stephane.martin@m4x.org> To: Paul Querna <chip@force-elite.com> Cc: freebsd-apache@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Apache 1.3.x vs 2.0.x Message-ID: <200409172012.28367.stephane.martin@m4x.org> In-Reply-To: <1095435393.23198.6.camel@localhost> References: <20040917131814.1B93616A4CE@hub.freebsd.org> <200409171726.07317.stephane.martin@m4x.org> <1095435393.23198.6.camel@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Le Vendredi 17 Septembre 2004 17:36, vous avez =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: > On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 17:26 +0200, stephane martin wrote: > > It is probably the same problem with mod_python and mod_perl. > > No, mod_python uses a Global Interpreter Lock, and is therefore thread > safe. Performance is better for mod_python under the Prefork MPM > because of this however. > > mod_perl has thread safety built in, and performs *much* better under > the Worker MPM. Well, in fact php is also thread-safe (I hope). However, the external=20 libraries used by PHP are not necessarily thread-safe (exemple: gd ?=20 imagick ? pcre ? dom ?...). That's why I thought the same argument could be used for mod_python and=20 mod_perl if they call thread-unsafe libraries. Now with that Global Lock I= =20 don't really know :-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200409172012.28367.stephane.martin>