On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > With mod_proxy you really only need a few mod_perl processes because > no longer is the mod_perl ("heavy") apache process i/o bound. It's > now CPU bound. (or should be under heavy load) I think for most of us this is usually not the case, since most web apps involve using some kind of external data source like a database or search engine. They spend most of their time waiting on that resource rather than using the CPU. Isn't is common wisdom that parallel processing is better for servers than sequenential anyway, since it means most people don't have to wait as long for a response? The sequential model is great if you're the next in line, but terrible if there are 50 big requests in front of you and yours is very small. Parallelism evens things out. - Perrin
- Re: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memo... shane
- Re: Modperl/Apache deficiencies...... Gunther Birznieks
- Re: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memory usage. Tom Mornini
- Re: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memory usage.y Leslie Mikesell
- Re: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memory usage. Doug MacEachern
- Re: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memory usage. jb
- Re: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memory usage... shane
- Re: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memory u... Perrin Harkins
- Re: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memo... Leslie Mikesell
- Re: Modperl/Apache deficiencies...... Perrin Harkins
- Re: Modperl/Apache deficiencie... shane
- [RFC] modproxy:modperl ratios.... shane
- Re: [RFC] modproxy:modperl rat... Leslie Mikesell
- Re: [RFC] modproxy:modperl rat... Matt Sergeant
- Re: [RFC] modproxy:modperl rat... shane
- Re: [RFC] modproxy:modperl rat... Matt Sergeant
- Re: [RFC] modproxy:modperl rat... shane
- Re: [RFC] modproxy:modperl rat... Michael hall