I sure would do that sometime today. The leader probably uses some apr_atomic stuff - and I'm trying to see if I can use IA64 native code to do the atomics.
For people at ease with visual stuff, here's the CPU performance that I'm getting with worker MPM and SPECweb99_SSL. Something looks is terribly wrong. httpd.conf: ------------ MPM: worker StartServers 1 MaxClients 2000 MinSpareThreads 500 MaxSpareThreads 2000 ThreadsPerChild 500 -Madhu >-----Original Message----- >From: Brian Pane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:52 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Regarding worker MPM and queue_push/pop > > > >On Dec 4, 2003, at 9:18 AM, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) >wrote: > >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [SNIP] >>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote: >>> >>>> instead of having the worker threads compete for the >>> incoming connections >>>> (using ap_queue_pop .. and hence mutex_lock), assign the >>> connection to the >>>> next free thread on a round-robin basis - if I'm not >wrong, zeus does >>>> something similar. >>> >>> Isn't that what the leader-follower MPM does? >> >> Ah.. I didn't see the leader-follower stuff (I'm probably >too focussed >> on >> worker MPM). Thanks for pointing it out ! >> >> Has there been any analysis done on the leader-follower MPM already ? > >I did some comparisons between leader-follower and worker a long >time ago. At that time, worker was slightly faster than >leader-follower >on multiprocessor Solaris servers, but the code has changed since >then, and the performance characteristics of both are likely to vary >among operating systems. If you have the time to test it, it wouldn't >hurt to compare leader/follower to worker in your current benchmark >environment. > >Brian >
<<attachment: CPU graph.jpg>>
