wrote:
> Mendonce, Kiran (STSD) wrote:
>>
>> We tried using mod_cgi with worker. And its very slow. So that's not
>> an option we have. Currently we have only worker MPM supported on
>> HP-UX which is why I tried the multiple cgid approach.
>
> Ah. Now it
, June 20, 2006 2:18 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Question on multi-process CGID
Mendonce, Kiran (STSD) wrote:
> I am looking into the probable bottlenecks.
>
> Agreed that the worker MPM has its advantages. But for a customer who
> is being asked to move to Apache 2.0,
that the benchmarking numbers
fall short ?
Regards,
Kiran
-Original Message-
From: Paul Querna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:44 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Question on multi-process CGID
Mendonce, Kiran (STSD) wrote:
>
>> It depends on
>It depends on where the real bottleneck is.
>
>Most of the time, if you are unable to cope with the volume of incoming
CGI requests, its because your CGIs themselves are slow to start.
>
>For example, if your CGIs are coded in Perl, just starting them can
take a long time, which is independent o
Hi,
We had a scenario where the worker MPM was not performing as expected.
The bottleneck was identified as a single CGI daemon not being able to
cope with the volume of CGI requests coming in. So I made some changes
to convert the single process CGI daemon to multi-process. On multiple
CPU machin
If I use TCP socket instead of the default unix doman socket for the
Scriptsock directive, I have a problem when there is a huge post
payload. I have a form that sends a huge volume of data to a CGI script.
I get an error on the browser.
I did some debugging and found that the CGI process terminat
