On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Matt Sergeant wrote: > Apache's downside is simply that it requires Apache. In most other > aspects it's pretty good, including the fact that for free you get a > working server-status page listing current connections. I think the > performance of the Apache module is very slightly higher than prefork > simply because all the I/O happens in C.
I have apache, anyway, but would pre-fork have the edge? I have invested a lot into the multilog logging and stats gathering, among other things, so as long as pre-fork can use the same logging, it sounds the best. (I'm guessing there really isn't any reason to consider forkserver at all, anymore.) > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 22:30:50 +0000 (UTC), > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > (I definitely want stable, so pollserver looks like it's out of the > > question. BTW, are there any guidelines on how to write async modules to > > ensure they work with pollserver?) > > There are lots of bits and pieces that I've posted to this mailing > list. That's about all though :-/ Basically you just need an > understanding of how async programming works - from there everything > starts to become obvious. I believe I understand, but only from the very highest altitudes. It seems to me that there might be many places where it could be an issue, or that it could just as easily not be. I haven't seen any of the pollserver code or anything to suggest how it does what it does. (Is it that pollserver requires everything to be able to do its own thing at any point in time, or is it just that running everything sequentially for each connection will slow things down? If it's just as fast as forkserver should that happen, I could probably live with that, but if its actually prone to breaking, then it's not for me. If you ever do get some good documentation together on pollserver and/or async programming, please announce it. Thanks.
