Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>