Fredrik Lindmark wrote: > On Dec 6, 2005, at 7:00 PM, Frank Wiles wrote: > >>> And im not starting up new threads myself.. i rely on apache on this >>> so it feels like i should be in a safe enviroment here.. >> >> >> Have you tried the same code with the prefork MPM? While I know >> there are people using the other MPMs, prefork is by far the most >> used and tested with mod_perl. > > > Was running prefork apache 2.0.52 earlier. without any of these symptoms.. > Im switching to the worker in an attempt to improve the performance, > adding memory sharing .. the code is no big difference apart from the > earlier though, therefore i believe the error is related to the worker > MPM alone. > > It wont actually help my cause to switch back, it need to be > multi-threaded... > yet it might take me closer to a better filed bug-report.. so tx, good > point. > > ~ F > > >
I don't think that you gain much performance at least on the mod-perl side of the story because a you need: a) threaded-perl which is significatly slower in most operation you are executing b) starting new processes with a threaded perl you cann't use COW which is used when forking If you need better apache performance i'd use the proxy setup where the frontend apache uses the worker mpm (without mod-perl) and my apache in the back is full featured apache running in prefork mode. Do you really gain that much performance using worker? Tom
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
