Re: [users@httpd] apache 2.2 can't keep up with apache 1.3

2012-03-14 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
On 3/13/2012 12:25 PM, Tom Evans wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:19 PM, William Taylor > wrote: >> I wouldn't say it's silly, but definitely not the norm and obviously a >> low priority >> for everyone else. > > I would say that forking an entire new process to handle a single > request and t

Re: [users@httpd] apache 2.2 can't keep up with apache 1.3

2012-03-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Mar 13, 2012, at 1:40 PM, William Taylor wrote: > It's unfortunate that it has to work this way but forks are pretty cheap > these days. > > No it doesn't generate content. It can't run as a CGI. Cheap != free no matter how cheap ;) ---

Re: [users@httpd] apache 2.2 can't keep up with apache 1.3

2012-03-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Mar 13, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Tom Evans wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:19 PM, William Taylor > wrote: >> I wouldn't say it's silly, but definitely not the norm and obviously a >> low priority >> for everyone else. > > I would say that forking an entire new process to handle a single > reque

Re: [users@httpd] apache 2.2 can't keep up with apache 1.3

2012-03-13 Thread William Taylor
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:25:54 AM, Tom Evans wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:19 PM, William Taylor > wrote: >> >> I wouldn't say it's silly, but definitely not the norm and obviously a >> low priority >> for everyone else. > > > I would say that forking an entire new process to handle a

Re: [users@httpd] apache 2.2 can't keep up with apache 1.3

2012-03-13 Thread Tom Evans
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:19 PM, William Taylor wrote: > I wouldn't say it's silly, but definitely not the norm and obviously a > low priority > for everyone else. I would say that forking an entire new process to handle a single request and then exiting could possibly be the most silly way to se

Re: [users@httpd] apache 2.2 can't keep up with apache 1.3

2012-03-13 Thread William Taylor
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:11:17 AM, Tom Evans wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:58 PM, William Taylor > wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:42:35 AM, Tom Evans wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:39 PM, William Taylor >>> wrote: Previously posted to dev and bu

Re: [users@httpd] apache 2.2 can't keep up with apache 1.3

2012-03-13 Thread Tom Evans
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:58 PM, William Taylor wrote: > On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:42:35 AM, Tom Evans wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:39 PM, William Taylor >> wrote: >>> >>> Previously posted to dev and bugs. Posting here also in hopes of >>> capturing a greater audience that might hav

Re: [users@httpd] apache 2.2 can't keep up with apache 1.3

2012-03-13 Thread William Taylor
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:42:35 AM, Tom Evans wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:39 PM, William Taylor > wrote: >> >> Previously posted to dev and bugs. Posting here also in hopes of >> capturing a greater audience that might have come >> across this issue before. >> >> We have written a modu

Re: [users@httpd] apache 2.2 can't keep up with apache 1.3

2012-03-13 Thread Tom Evans
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:39 PM, William Taylor wrote: > Previously posted to dev and bugs. Posting here also in hopes of > capturing a greater audience that might have come > across this issue before. > > We have written a modules for apache that for certain reasons requires > one hit per child.

[users@httpd] apache 2.2 can't keep up with apache 1.3

2012-03-12 Thread William Taylor
Previously posted to dev and bugs. Posting here also in hopes of capturing a greater audience that might have come across this issue before. We have written a modules for apache that for certain reasons requires one hit per child. On apache 1.3 this worked fine with a minor tweak to SCOREBOARD_MAI