Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:19:56 -0800 (PST) From: Kip Macy <kmacy@netapp.com> To: Dominic Marks <dominic_marks@btinternet.com> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, Hiten Pandya <hiten@uk.FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: In-Kernel HTTP Server (name preference) Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10202190914510.25289-100000@cranford> In-Reply-To: <20020219092058.A78717@host213-123-131-110.in-addr.bto>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Apache will switch to this method at some point. I really can't > understand why they went with that complicated pre-forking stuff. > Using non-blockijng I/O is just not that hard." As mentioned previously, due to the blocking semantics of file I/O on unix, single process servers will only provide peak throughput if everything is resident. By pre-forking, data can continued to be served if one process blocks on file I/O. Apache already handles multiple connections within a process, so it does something like this already. -Kip To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10202190914510.25289-100000>