Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 03:36:03 +0800 (CST) From: Brian Tao <taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw> To: Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> Cc: nc@ai.net, Arjan.deVet@nl.cis.philips.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, Guido.VanRooij@nl.cis.philips.com Subject: Re: Apache + FreeBSD 2.0 benchmark results (fwd) Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.950510033052.9251D-100000@aries.ibms.sinica.edu.tw> In-Reply-To: <9505091657.AA02008@cs.weber.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 9 May 1995, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> The correct term for "pre-forking" is "spawn-ahead".
I was always under the impression that the creation of another
process is called "forking" under UNIX and not "spawning (isn't that
VAX-speak?).
> Actually, a lot of UNIX kernels keep process templates around, which
> are most of the generic process information but none of the specific
> so as to optimize forking benchmarks (hint, hint).
What, have a specially-compiled kernel that can fork off httpd's
in no time at all? As usual, you're too far ahead of me, Terry, and
I'm having trouble keeping up. :-/
BTW, the multithreaded server I've got running on my FreeBSD box
probably isn't truly "multithreaded" (it uses select() to handle
multiple connections with a single process). What should this be
called? A multiheaded server?
--
Brian ("Though this be madness, yet there is method in't") Tao
taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw <-- work ........ play --> taob@io.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.91.950510033052.9251D-100000>