On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > [ Moving to dev@httpd where this belongs ] > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 07:10:02AM -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > Correct. From the feedback I am getting, users do not adequately > > understand the implications of choosing a threaded MPM. We need to do a > > better job educating them to the fact that we simple cannot guarantee > > which libraries are threadsafe and which are not. > > Precisely which libraries are the core of httpd-2.0 using in a > thread-unsafe manner? At least in the core distribution, we > should have knowledge of which libraries are thread-unsafe and > prevent this. To my knowledge, I haven't seen a single problem > related to this. If you have actual cases where httpd-2.0 is > doing something unsafe, please let us know! > > I think perhaps your concern is simply to PHP which may bring > in thread-unsafe libraries not httpd-2.0. -- justin
As I have stated a dozen times now. Yes, I am talking about PHP and any other add-on module people may use. I think the attitude of most people here sucks. "Apache doesn't have a problem, why should we do anything?" The reality is that a big chunk of our Apache community uses Apache to serve up complex dynamic content using PHP, mod_perl, other 3rd-party modules and homegrown modules as well. PHP and mod_perl alone are on well over 50% of all Apache servers. People don't look to Apache for simply serving up static content. A lot of sites replaced Apache long ago with thttpd/Zeus/boa/Tux/khttpd for that. All I am after is a simple very visible addition to the Apache 2 distribution which explains that the threaded mpms may not be suitable for serving up dynamic content due to the unknown thread safety of the libraries these dynamic solutions rely on. -Rasmus
