For example lighttpd according to NetCraft:
01.2007 lighttpd 172819
02.2007 lighttpd 702712
You should wait march, such a jump is suspect :)
--Pierre
Hello Pierre,
03.2007 lighttpd 1.399.786
http://survey.netcraft.com/Reports/0703/
This gives place 4, right behind Sun (if you skip 'unknow
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Yeah but process limits are inherited after fork().
Well probably. But does there exists a configurable limit in php for that
(which was implemented by previos mentioned patch in 4.x branch)? As if the
child exceeds the limit it handles the last request and shuts down to
Yeah but process limits are inherited after fork().
> -Original Message-
> From: Reinis Rozitis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:28 AM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] FastCGI limit memory
>
> Andi Gutmans wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Don't the FastCGI processes inherit memory limits from their parent? (assuming
you're not running standalone FastCGI which almost
noone does).
Nope, the parent (master) process only keeps the track of active childs
(usually I spawn like 250 of them) and distributes the in
o: Reinis Rozitis
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] FastCGI limit memory
>
> On 2/5/07, Reinis Rozitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm not sure that you are looking at the right place to solve the
> > > problem. If the leaks are in phpinfo
On 2/5/07, Reinis Rozitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure that you are looking at the right place to solve the
> problem. If the leaks are in phpinfo (or in memory allocated by php),
> then maybe (really not sure).
>
> But if the leaks are in IM as their extension does not use php memor
I'm not sure that you are looking at the right place to solve the
problem. If the leaks are in phpinfo (or in memory allocated by php),
then maybe (really not sure).
But if the leaks are in IM as their extension does not use php memory
manage, it is not something fixable by php or anything else b
Hi,
On 2/5/07, Reinis Rozitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It will never replace the GD extension. Please read the whole thread
> before making conclusions (btw, check out http://www.libgd.org).
I didnt mean that way nor as a conclusion, GD is still much faster and so on
(but thanks for the lin
It will never replace the GD extension. Please read the whole thread
before making conclusions (btw, check out http://www.libgd.org).
I didnt mean that way nor as a conclusion, GD is still much faster and so on
(but thanks for the link/hint).
It was just an excuse why did I play with magickwand
On 2/5/07, Reinis Rozitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm asking about this just because yesterday while testing MagickWand (
http://www.magickwand.org which according to Thomas Boutell
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=115698025320619 in some point
should replace GD) just by accident di
10 matches
Mail list logo
