the cost of forking can vary greatly depending on the OS. David Lang
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Lawrence Greenfield wrote: > Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 22:38:43 -0400 > From: Lawrence Greenfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Cyrus-Info <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: imapd timeout > > Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 19:32:44 -0700 > From: David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Cyrus-Info <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Cyrus does recycle processes. Unix forking is amazingly slow compared > > to not forking and on servers that receive many connections a second > > this performance tweak is vital. > > That explains it; thanks for the explanation. > > (Still, even 10 forks/second seems entirely do-able. While I don't > dispute the principle, I'd think you'd need to get closer to 100 > forks/second before forking bottlenecks would become as important as > disk I/O bottlenecks.) > > Unfortunately, experience doesn't agree with your estimate. > > Larry > >
