On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 16:49, Perrin Harkins wrote: > On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 16:40, Richard F. Rebel wrote: > > Umm, maybe we are talking about different things. If I run my > > application with 500+ httpd's in the process list using prefork, it uses > > a lot more memory than running 10 httpds with 64 threads each using > > worker. It also gets worse over time (as shared pages get altered). > > > > Did I miss something or did I do something wrong? > > I'm not sure you did anything wrong, but your results are very different > from what other people have reported. In general, because perl threads > don't actually share anything (except opcode trees) unless you tell them > to, all the data gets copied to each thread, which ends up taking up > more memory than the prefork model with COW.
Interesting. I just noticed documentation on the web site about these directives. Were these docs here about 1 year ago (when I wrote this app???). > Maybe you have the PerlInterp* settings set low so that you actually > have fewer interpreters running than you did when you were running > prefork? If so, that's similar to using prefork with a reverse proxy in > front. I have *no* perlInterp* configuration directives. > - Perrin -- Richard F. Rebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] t. 212.239.0000
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
