> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@ISI.EDU]
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 11:15 PM
> To: Josh Cohen (Exchange)
> Cc: 'Spencer Dawkins'; 'Henrik Nordstrom'; wrec@cs.utk.edu
> Subject: Re: oh the irony
>
> "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" wrote:
> >
> > On a related note, I think one of the major issues, which hasn't
> > been mentioned here yet, is the server utilization. From the
> > web site's perspective, which handles hundreds of requests
> > per second, holding a persistent connection open for even a mere
> > second is very expensive.
>
> A multithreaded implementation should have no problem with
> quite a few open connections.
>
True, however, most unix implementations are not multithreaded (eg apache).
However, netscape's server is multithreaded.
Additionally, traditionally on unix, each process has a fixed
amount of file descriptors, which limits the number of concurrent
connections. Select(), for example can only select over N fds,
where N is typically 1024.
Of course, NT doesn't have this particular problem, but since apache
is so widely used, most servers do.
So, yes, theoretically multithreading can help this, but in practice
the problem remains, the cost of each connection is quite high.
> > This is especially painful for servers
> > that maintain a more or less fixed set of processes or maximum
> > concurrent connections such as Apache.
>
> Yes. Slow servers are slow. What are you tuning?
>
> Joe
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST