On 1/27/2011 7:16 PM, Michael Peters wrote: > On 01/27/2011 07:41 PM, Michael Ludwig wrote: >> Michael Peters schrieb am 27.01.2011 um 19:14 (-0500): >> >>> But, even after all that I have applications where we consistently >>> run 3-4G just for mod_perl/Apache. >> >> But surely not in one process as the OP said he'd like to do? > > No you're right, but I'm guessing he might be running a threaded MPM, so > single process, > multiple threads.
Exactly. Even constraining httpd to smaller stacks is unlikely to be wise with mod_perl running, consider the default is 256kb IIRC. Shrinking this to 128k obviously is a big help, but is unrealistic. I agree with Peters, run a proxy in front of the server hosting mod_perl. Even when we ship binary 64 bit for win32, there are far too many broken perl and similar modules which don't expect sizeof(long*) > sizeof(long), which has tripped up many porters. Most of these defects are gone from apr and httpd, and perl and modperl can likely catch up quickly, but to isolate every possible modperl XS package on cpan and identify all those which make stupid long x = (long)xptr; assignments will be arduous.
