> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> This last one is inconsistent with your other changes. In the
> threaded MPM, a 'Server' by
> your defn is a thread. MaxRequestsPerChild is used to limit the
> number of requests a
> 'process' serves before going away.
Yes. That's right.
>
> In past discussions, we have almost settled on the notion of a
> "worker" as being the thing
> capable of serving a request.
Fine. I don't mind "worker" instead of "server". (The only disadvantage is
that prefork needs to change. But that's not a big deal.)
I think we should also rename MaxClients to MaxWorkers.
> StartWorkers - ??? What do we want the option to do? Startup this
> number of worker threads
> or startup this number of child processes?
I would like to see StartWorkers which would behave very similarly to how
Aaron has designed MaxClients/MaxWorkers; ie. it would automatically set the
number of child processes to launch to guarentee StartWorkers total threads.
I do, however, see a potential problem with configuration getting fragile
with all this stuff going on behind the scenes.
To sum up, my proposal for worker is then
StartWorkers 50
MaxWorkers 150
MinSpareWorkers 10
MaxSpareWorkers 50
WorkersPerProcess 25
MaxRequestsPerProcess 0
Perfork could work exactly the same with the absence of WorkersPerProcess.
PerChild would need a little more thought.
These are all just name changes except StartWorkers and MaxWorkers which use
Aaron's logic to derive process numbers.
> Okay, changing topics only slightly... how about we replace
> MinSpare[Threads|Servers|Workers] and
> MaxSpare[Threads|Servers|workers] with a single
> directive, Spare[Threads|Servers|Workers]?
I don't understand that. There needs to be some notion of slack, so that
the server is not constantly starting and killing threads/processes to keep
the correct number of spares.
Joshua.
