> In view of this "It's impossible to tell which libs are thread safe" > wouldn't it perhaps make sense to have a perchild version that uses > processed instead of threads? I sure know that this would result in a > insane amount of sleeping processes in a massive Virtualhosting setup > but in my tests a very low end 500Mhz FreeBSD 4.6 box with 256MB RAM had > no problem whatsoever with 2000 sleeping Apache processes belonging to 250 > DISTINCT instances of 1.3.26, all based upon different config files > and running on different ports . Swap wasn't used and in idle state, > the 2000 processes consumed less than 1.5% CPU...
While it is technicalloy possible to create a preforking server that operates like perchild, it isn't a simple thing to do. I would even go so far as to say that it isn't something you really want. If you want that behavior, the best solution is to just run multiple Apache servers. I looked at every MPM before creating perchild, and the only one that made a lot of sense for perchild was a static number of processes with a dynamic number of threads per process. If you have a dynamic number of processes, then the parent process must always determine how many child processes with each uid/gid exist currently. If you are going to do that, you are better off to just run two or three instances of prefork with an IP alias. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Jean St Oakland CA 94610 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
