Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
http://www.thoughtworthy.com/downloads/Apache-DBI-0.97-KAM-patch
Here's a list of the changes:
Patch June 29, 2005 - Thanks to Kevin A. McGrail (ThoughtWorthy Media,
Inc.)
- Added a feature 'Apache::AuthDBI->setProjID(1)' to set a Shared
Memory Project
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:31:28PM -0500, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> BerkeleyDB, MySQL, or SQLite3, but I don't think BDB works in Win32.
Please don't tell my code that :). It's been using the BerkeleyDB module
on a daily basis for nearly a year with few problems. The module is
available as a PPM on
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 19:30 -0500, jonathan vanasco wrote:
> just wanted to clarify - i said that it was closer to the speed of bdb
> than mysql -- not faster than bdb
In my tests, it's a lot slower than MySQL. I'm doing 50% writes in this
test though, so it may be a poor benchmark.
I'm not try
I just saw perrin's post on perlmonks -- can't remember my login/pass
for there
just wanted to clarify - i said that it was closer to the speed of bdb
than mysql -- not faster than bdb
most of my tests have been with selects though -- i routinely use it as
a way to store/retrieve certain types
André Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I have previously gone though a lot of perl and mod_perl
> documentation, and perl module descriptions, and I never seemed to
> find a clear answer about wether yes or no it was possible to share
> in-memory data between 2 perl processes (or threa
And we appreciate it. :)
ditto
Perrin Harkins wrote:
I just want to make it very clear to people that they should not fork
with an open db handle and then try to use it.
And we appreciate it. :)
-ofer
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 19:40 -0500, jonathan vanasco wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2005, at 7:30 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
>
> > Don't fork with an open database connection and then try to use it. It
> > will not work.
>
> Really? I figured that it would work just right -- except whatever
> you programm
On Mar 15, 2005, at 7:30 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
Don't fork with an open database connection and then try to use it. It
will not work.
Really? I figured that it would work just right -- except whatever
you programmed to use that will crash and burn and time out waiting to
access the single s
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 18:40 -0500, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
> If you instantiate a DBI handle before the fork, then that handle is
> shared to all the children. If you instantiate the handle after the
> fork, the handle belongs to only that child , and shared across the
> requests of that child.
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 00:26 +0100, André Warnier wrote:
> I have previously gone though a lot of perl and mod_perl documentation,
> and perl module descriptions, and I never seemed to find a clear answer
> about wether yes or no it was possible to share in-memory data between 2
> perl processes
# The following was supposedly scribed by
# André Warnier
# on Tuesday 15 March 2005 05:26 pm:
>On the other hand, mod_perl seems to have some deep interactions with
>the innards of the Apache server, for example direct manipulation of
> the "bucket brigades". How come no-one has come up yet with
He's my naive understanding of your concerns, someone here may have to
correct me:
On Mar 15, 2005, at 6:26 PM, André Warnier wrote:
I have previously gone though a lot of perl and mod_perl
documentation, and perl module descriptions, and I never seemed to
find a clear answer about wether yes o
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 23:26 +0100, André Warnier wrote:
Do I get the feeling this is getting a bit off-topic ? :-)
That's because we believe we answered your question and are now talking
about interesting side-topics.
a) is it possible/easy to share this data between a numbe
to Skylos (and Jonathan before),
Skylos wrote:
memcached has nothing specifically to do with database access speed.
It is a general purpose shared cache utility that can be accessed by
all the systems on a platform independant basis.
[...]
Sorry, I misunderstood the information on the homepage of
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 23:26 +0100, André Warnier wrote:
> Do I get the feeling this is getting a bit off-topic ? :-)
That's because we believe we answered your question and are now talking
about interesting side-topics.
> a) is it possible/easy to share this data between a number of
> Apache2/mo
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 15:05 -0500, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
i've found sqlite3 to be wy faster than mysql for simple
transactions and, while there can be delays from locking, the speed
improvements of querying more than make up for it in the instances I've
tested
Sounds
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 15:05 -0500, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
> i've found sqlite3 to be wy faster than mysql for simple
> transactions and, while there can be delays from locking, the speed
> improvements of querying more than make up for it in the instances I've
> tested
Sounds good. I'll s
i've found sqlite3 to be wy faster than mysql for simple
transactions and, while there can be delays from locking, the speed
improvements of querying more than make up for it in the instances I've
tested
obviously, its not an answer to everything -- but for some situations,
its quite nice
* Perrin Harkins shaped the electrons to say...
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 14:11 -0500, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
sqlite3 is closer in speed to bdb than mysql, and offers more of the
'accessibility' that mysql offers.
i find myself using it much more than bdb lately
SQLite2 was pretty slow when I benchma
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 14:11 -0500, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
> sqlite3 is closer in speed to bdb than mysql, and offers more of the
> 'accessibility' that mysql offers.
> i find myself using it much more than bdb lately
SQLite2 was pretty slow when I benchmarked it for simple hash-like
usage. MySQ
sqlite3 is closer in speed to bdb than mysql, and offers more of the
'accessibility' that mysql offers.
i find myself using it much more than bdb lately
On Mar 15, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
This is true, but it sounds like Andre wants to replace a bespoke
database structure with so
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 17:47 +, Martin Moss wrote:
> I haven't used Memchache yet, but it has nothing to do
> with databases
> It CAN be used to prevent database load, OR it could
> be used to prevent too much access to flocking
> files...
This is true, but it sounds like Andre wants to re
--- André Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
> >
> > look into memcached -- http://danga.com/memcached/
>
> Thank you for the link, I didn't know that module,
> and I'll keep it in
> mind for some other projects.
> But it is slightly off the mark as far as the issue
>
Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
look into memcached -- http://danga.com/memcached/
Thank you for the link, I didn't know that module, and I'll keep it in
mind for some other projects.
But it is slightly off the mark as far as the issue below is concerned.
Maybe it was my mentioning "data in tables" that w
look into memcached -- http://danga.com/memcached/
On Mar 15, 2005, at 11:35 AM, André Warnier wrote:
Hello list.
Having looked hi and lo for definite information on the subject, found
a
lot but a bit confusing...
Environment :
Apache 2 / mod_perl 2 / perl 5.8.4+
Windows and Unix(es)
Apache mod_p
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:30:40 -0700
"John D. Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How can I increase the amount of shared memory space that this error
> is talking about?
>
> Apache/2.0.46 (Red Hat) configured -- resuming normal operations
> Loading Apache::Request at runtime. You could increase
Hello again,
Please keep it on the List.
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Daniel Wilson wrote:
> The new system has 512MB ram as aposed to the old having 1.5GB
That in itself would suggest to me that the settings in your httpd.conf
might need to be different on the two machines. Are they? Have you
looked
Hi there,
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, Daniel Wilson wrote:
> Moved my site to a new server.
>
> Old Server
> PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME CPU COMMAND
> 30056 apache 9 0 10964 10M 10288 S 0.0 0.7 0:00 0 httpd
> New Server
> 2733 apache16 0 12716 1
Daniel Wilson wrote:
Its not sharing the modules at start up and none of
the config or compile options have changed.
You diff'ed httpd.conf and startup.pl and found no differences at all?
The only thing different is the fact the old server has a custom
SMP kernel and the new has redhat's stock ke
30 matches
Mail list logo
