21 messages in org.apache.httpd.devRe: Is async the answer
FromSent OnAttachments
Akins, Brian18 Jan 2008 10:52 
Justin Erenkrantz18 Jan 2008 11:16 
Colm MacCarthaigh18 Jan 2008 11:20 
Akins, Brian18 Jan 2008 11:27 
Akins, Brian18 Jan 2008 11:31 
Colm MacCarthaigh18 Jan 2008 12:07 
Akins, Brian18 Jan 2008 13:17 
Colm MacCarthaigh18 Jan 2008 13:29 
Ruediger Pluem18 Jan 2008 14:30 
Justin Erenkrantz18 Jan 2008 16:33 
Niklas Edmundsson19 Jan 2008 03:53 
Graham Leggett19 Jan 2008 04:45 
Davi Arnaut19 Jan 2008 06:57 
Jim Jagielski19 Jan 2008 07:04 
Graham Leggett19 Jan 2008 08:02 
Henrik Nordström19 Jan 2008 13:14 
Henrik Nordström19 Jan 2008 13:19 
Davi Arnaut19 Jan 2008 15:29 
Graham Leggett20 Jan 2008 07:44 
Akins, Brian22 Jan 2008 10:03 
Akins, Brian22 Jan 2008 10:08 
Subject:Re: Is async the answer
From:Akins, Brian (Bria@turner.com)
Date:01/22/2008 10:08:21 AM
List:org.apache.httpd.dev

On 1/20/08 10:44 AM, "Graham Leggett" <minf@sharp.fm> wrote:

In terms of space, caches are not infinite in size, but then neither are the majority of backend websites either.

73GB is pretty big for a reverse proxy cache. And fast SAS drives are pretty cheap.

Sure, but I think the point that Brian was making was that you could support the kind of large load sizes that are traditionally associated with event based models using a prefork or worker setup, simply by making sure you have enough RAM.

And to stimulate some conversation. I just don't want us to "buy into" the "async is better" because that's the "trend" in servers nowadays. If async truly is better, then let's us it. Just don't want to do it "just because everyone else is."

Also, this test included all sorts of clients (slow, fast, in between). A blocking thread didn't seem to hurt the server. I'm guessing that 48k blocking threads wouldn't hurt it too bad either.

Also, I'm going to look at the serf "buckets" when I get time. Story of my life, though, no time...

-- Brian Akins Chief Operations Engineer Turner Digital Media Technologies