a) threaded-perl which is significatly slower in most operation you are
executing
I've just heard they are "comparable" in speed.. how big can this difference
be?
In our application that heavily uses hashes and closures we
experience a 2x slow down, and seldom segmentation fault.
We fell
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 14:42 -0200, Fredrik Lindmark wrote:
> I could actually make the tree in filestructure and let the leafs be
> isolated files i guess.
That's what I was going to recommend, but as Cache::FastMmap entries.
It will perform very well.
> but its still far from the perl local mem
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 13:46 -0200, Fredrik Lindmark wrote:
> Optimal would be to share the memory locally inside mod_perl and run
> one process and many threads.
> i should have basicly the same speed as a process prefork, and
> non-repeating data in the cache memory.
You will lose performance d
On Dec 7, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Frank Wiles wrote:
memcache and other daemons could help out here but they take too much
time compared to perls internal data memory to access and write.
Since they are not really fit for complex hash trees without doing a
heck of data coping forward and back.. i woul
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 13:46:04 -0200
Fredrik Lindmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> memcache and other daemons could help out here but they take too much
> time compared to perls internal data memory to access and write.
> Since they are not really fit for complex hash trees without doing a
> heck o
On Dec 7, 2005, at 10:09 AM, Tom Schindl wrote:
Was running prefork apache 2.0.52 earlier. without any of these
symptoms..
Im switching to the worker in an attempt to improve the performance,
I don't think that you gain much performance at least on the mod-perl
side of the story because a you
Fredrik Lindmark wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:00 PM, Frank Wiles wrote:
>
>>> And im not starting up new threads myself.. i rely on apache on this
>>> so it feels like i should be in a safe enviroment here..
>>
>>
>> Have you tried the same code with the prefork MPM? While I know
>> there ar
On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:00 PM, Frank Wiles wrote:
And im not starting up new threads myself.. i rely on apache on this
so it feels like i should be in a safe enviroment here..
Have you tried the same code with the prefork MPM? While I know
there are people using the other MPMs, prefork is by
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:58:49 -0200
Fredrik Lindmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Jonathan,
>
> yep. thats the idea.. just that our server network consists of
> osx-servers as well... so im not getting around it that easy =/
> Was searching around but couldnt pick up any bug-report of this kin
Hey Jonathan,
yep. thats the idea.. just that our server network consists of
osx-servers as well... so im not getting around it that easy =/
Was searching around but couldnt pick up any bug-report of this kind
It's no loop, cause i get the confirmation the page is done and the
script is termi
i've seen stuff like this on osx a lot -- apache or some other app
will peg for near 100% cpu use for a few moments, then just go idle
no idea why.
there's a VERY good chance this is a mac thing, and your code will be
fine on another server (assuming you're using the mac like me as a
d
Without seeing any code about what you are doing we cann't say much.
Tom
> --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
> Von: Fredrik Lindmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> An: modperl@perl.apache.org
> Betreff: The apache CPU race..
> Datum: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 03:36:05 -0200
>
>PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #
12 matches
Mail list logo
