[snip] > > Just wondering (thinking a bit left field), but question was asked of me. > Any reason to have a shm across processes. > > > > So that worker state is replicated across processes. > Eg, if connection to one backend is broken each process will have to discover > that by itself. Shared memory allows that if one worker process discovers > that a backend is down other won't have to go trough the lengthy process of > discovering that. > > Also loadbalancer load factors are calculated across all processes not just > for > the current one. So, the benefits are real.
Not deny that, just thinking out aloud, also been asking myself if there is any reason to run a 4 process web garden. The only benefit I can see is that if 1 process dies there will be other process to continue processing. 1 process + threads v's X processes + threads > > However unlike with httpd, IIS does not offer parent/child concept so we > don't have the shared memory 'controller'. > The ultimate solution would be to start a separate controller process, but > that's probably something for the future. > > Even if the current set of patches work, I'm more convinced we should have > a directive to disable shared memory usage, and think I'm going to add that > option for 1.2.34 anyhow. So would that effectively do what I was suggesting above ? Thanks > > > Regards > -- > ^TM > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
