Of course this is an old conversation, but we use mod_perl as a DSO here extensively with no problems. We have servers that have uptimes of almost 1 year (306 days as of today) and were taken down because the servers were moved to a new server room and not because of a problem with the DSO. And we get several thousand hits a day during the school year. It has been my experience that DSO vs. Static is not the issue it once was.
Joe > -----Original Message----- > From: David Dyer-Bennet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:27 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Static vs. DSO on Linux specifically > > > I've seen a lot of comments which seem to me to say that a static > mod_perl is the "only way to go". > > But Redhat ships it as a DSO. > > Now, on the one hand, I wouldn't just automatically assume that Redhat > knew what they were doing. > > On the other hand, I've asked a couple local mod_perl junkies I know > how static was better, and they didn't have any good answers for the > Intel / Linux environment (though they definitely knew reasons for the > Windows environment). > > (And I know a static setup would use somewhat less memory; > but the last > memory I bought for this server cost me $16.04 per 128MB, and it's > connected to the net over only a 768k DSL line, so I'm not running > *hundreds* of server processes; more like *tens*.) > > What I've found on the web so far makes claims strong enough that I > feel my experience contradicts them adequately, and makes few actual > *explanations*. > > So, specifically for the Linux environment, what are the downsides of > running mod_perl as a DSO? (Pointers to the FM so I can R it would be > fine.) > -- > David Dyer-Bennet, [EMAIL PROTECTED] / New TMDA anti-spam in test > John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net > Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/ > New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info >
