But my point is that the communication overhead is still gained by process
based systems. True they don't have the same pooling ability, as does a
threaded process management. Overhead saved using pconnect is that which is
being debated here.
On a side note.... The OCI8 module in it's latest rendition does not take
advantage of threaded environments (well, it never really did, but it was
crashing, when it thought it could). Anybody want to help me fix that? I
don't have a whole lot of time to devote to this task. I have a good
understanding of what needs to be done. With out help, it may be a while
before I get around to it.
-Joe
"Daniel Beulshausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sunday, April 15, 2001, 6:45:14 PM, you wrote:
> > Your comment reguarding threaded sapi's although accurate, leaves
> > out
> > process based systems. They also benefit from pconnects, because
> > the PHP
> > process lives on past the life of a single web page.
>
> such things can't be shared amongst processes.
> it works differently on multi process based systems (like apache),
> there are persistent connections as well, but they can only be used by
> one worker process.
> that's one working process has a pool of persistent connections which
> is reused only by that working process.
> i've left that out because multi process based systems are rare
> (generally bad design as well) and a follow there own rules.
>
> daniel
>
> /*--
> daniel beulshausen - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> using php on windows? http://www.php4win.de
>
>
>
> --
> PHP Windows Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
PHP Windows Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
