Subject: Re: Looking for new apache maintainer
From: Brian Dessent <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:55:02 -0700

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> When you start Apache you can specify how many subprocesses to run. Thus
> start up can be expensive. And I know that Apache will start new
> processes if need be - presumably if you have a lot of hits. But for us
> relatively low hit guys I think we can live with the once in a while
> [re]startup costs of Apache and the occasional additional sluggishness
> when Apache needs to allocate another subprocess on those rare times
> when our site is getting a lot of hits.

There's also the issue of switching context between processes vs.
threads.  On a heavily loaded server the thread model should be much
more efficient under Windows.  However as you point out on a lightly
loaded server it's all academic as the difference would be nearly
undetectable.

> Would you suspect that you could get Apache 2.x to use threads under Cygwin?

Yes, but I have not tried.

> I had run my site on XP using Cygwin and Apache. For a while I ran the
> native version. Then switched to the Cygwin version, then eventually to
> ...
> pigheaded and has disallowed the usage of "unauthorized" software such
> as Cygwin so currently I'm stuck. But I'm hoping that will change.

Okay, I'll take that as an enthusiastic request for an apache2 package.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/