Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 10:06:06 +1100 (EST) From: Anthony Hill <ahill@interconnect.com.au> To: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu Cc: Luis Verissimo <licau@ebs08.eb.uah.edu>, questions@freebsd.org Subject: inetd/deamon Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.960130095455.22782A-100000@tulpi.interconnect.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960128204944.4291Q-100000@gdi.uoregon.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 28 Jan 1996, Doug White wrote: > On Sat, 27 Jan 1996, Anthony Hill wrote: > > > apache as a deamon - the docs recommend against using apache from inetd. > > (Anyone know why ?) > > Apache can manage multiple connections better than inetd can -- Apache > spawns off 4 or so instances; inetd spawns 1 for every connection, which > can get costly in terms of time and memory. Wouldnt the habit of spawning more children than is actually required mean that while running as a deamon is more efficiant time wise, but that running under inetd is more efficiant memory wise ? Also do you know if there are any other reasons for not running apache from inetd ? (The site I run is VERY lightly hit - and this is not about to change) I figure the overhead of having httpd's running all the time is not worth the small improvement in response when is actually used, unless of course, other factors are also at play here. Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.91.960130095455.22782A-100000>