--On Saturday, November 6, 2004 8:28 AM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -125,6 +125,8 @@
+0: BrianP, Aaron (mutex contention is looking better with the
latest code, let's continue tuning and testing), rederpj, jim
-0: Lars
+
+ pquerna: Do we want to
> Seems reasonable to do so. 2.0 was our first threaded release - making
> a threaded MPM by default (if available) for 2.2 seems fine by me. --
> justin
agreed :)
however, something that I heard recently is that if you specify a threaded
MPM on a platform that does not support it, the build p
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> MPM on a platform that does not support it, the build process silently
> switches to prefork (or whatever the default is for the platform, I guess)
> now, I haven't seen this myself, so I don't want to propagate FUD, but if
> it's true I might suggest th
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 12:48:50AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Saturday, November 6, 2004 8:28 AM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > @@ -125,6 +125,8 @@
> > +0: BrianP, Aaron (mutex contention is looking better with the
> > latest code, let's continue tuning a
It's not Linux but here is a piece of information that should help.
NetWare is a thread only environment which means that we have been
shipping and running all of the standard modules since day one with
really no report of any threading related issues. I can't speak for any
third party modules
Joe Orton wrote:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 12:48:50AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Saturday, November 6, 2004 8:28 AM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -125,6 +125,8 @@
+0: BrianP, Aaron (mutex contention is looking better with the
latest code, let's continue tuning and
