On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 04:14, Stas Bekman wrote:
Ah, sorry for chiming in again, it's true regarding the memory, but not that bad regarding performance. The only real performance overhead is to spawn a new perl interpreter (which is just terrible if you have many modules preloaded), which you can prespawn.
I was actually thinking of how a 5.8 perl compiled with threads is about
15% slower than a non-threaded version.
Yup, which is why, I did write:
"Once it's spawned the run-time performance should be a bit worse than a normal perl, bad not as bad as you made it sound On the other hand you get different benefits from using threads, and depending on your application your overall performance could be even better using threads. Of course if you are on windows, you have no choice but to use threads."
We really need more real world benchmarks to make a good judgement. It's probably quite certain that the performance is going to be worse if you spawn threads, but don't deploy the benefits available exclusively to threads (shared opcode tree, shared vars, etc). Once people will start using threaded mpms, we will have more real world data.
__________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
-- Reporting bugs: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/ Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
