Unsubscribe: email users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org - Y
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:13 AM, DeLeon, Rose L <rosedel...@firstam.com> wrote: > Please do not email me anymore > > > > > > > > *From:* Kurtis Rader [mailto:kra...@skepticism.us] > *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 7:34 AM > *To:* users@httpd.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: [users@httpd] Running Apache in Single Process Mode for > Docker Container? > > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:09 PM, David Aronchick <aronch...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I hadn't thought of the fact that apache would be architected to use its > multiple threads as an internal housekeeping (instead of just to allow > parallelization of requests). > > > > You misunderstood me. I don't know that the extra threads you're seeing > are housekeeping threads. That is simply one plausible explanation. > > > > My motivation behind moving the processes to be so low is that I'm trying > to explore Apache's suitability for use in a Docker container, in the > "Docker way" - minimal processes per containers, that, when the process > failed for any reason, the entire container is killed, and you spin up many > containers to accommodate that. I think this is the point where I give up, > and just spend the time porting this app to nginx. > > > > I don't understand what the problem is. If you're starting a > single-program to do exactly one task (e.g., server individual HTTP > requests serially) then what does it matter if the program requires one, > two or three threads to do the job? What if performing the desired task > required two cooperating processes? It seems to me you're confusing a > guideline (e.g., minimize the number of processes per container) for a > mandate (e.g., have only one process per container). > > > > -- > > Kurtis Rader > > Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank > > > ****************************************************************************************** > This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended > only for the use of the > addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally > privileged. If you are > not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to > the intended addressee, > you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or > copying this message is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please > immediately notify us by > replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies > immediately thereafter. > > If you received this email as a commercial message and would like to opt > out of future commercial > messages, please let us know and we will remove you from our distribution > list. > > Thank you.~ > > ****************************************************************************************** > FAFLD >
