Re: [apache-plusplus] Re: Process model for C++ Apache

[Michael Anderson <mka@redes.int.com.mx>]

Dean Gaudet wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Michael Anderson wrote:
> 
> > Why don't you start an product/architecture discussion for
> > 2.0 in new-httpd - that issue is more general than C++ and
> > needs to happen whatever the implementation language.
> >
> > I'd do it but I haven't ever had any luck getting responses
> > in that mailing list. I wonder it there isn't another list
> > more appropriate?
> 
> new-httpd is appropriate...

I'm working on the first salvo of the product/architecture
discussion - another novel because the subject is very
large.

> ... the flow thing I just posted to new-httpd. ... the point
> of realising that it could actually work... I've struggled
> with a design like it for ages, but kept thinking "nah why
> bother, it can't be faster, can it?"  And then you reminded
> me that thread stacks pollute L1 caches, and that was one of
> the light bulbs I needed!

"Faster" is important, but it isn't everything. Different
threading models will perform better on different request
types, and you have to be careful that the measurements
don't bias only one request type, such as small static pages.

However, message-abstraction and the multiple threads-per-
request that implies permits at least two types of parallelisms
(and perhaps several more) that, together with the reduced
server-wide threads and the cache effect you mentioned,
should increase total server throughput. This would come at the
(small) expense of very fast responses for simple requests
(due to increased code complexity), unless the per-request
threading model can dynamically adjust itself. Or in the
case of your "Flow" concept, caching replaces processing for
simple requests. Looks real good in concept.

Geez, I managed a whole novel in a single paragraph ...

Regards,
-- 
Mike Anderson
mka@redes.int.com.mx
+52 473 23730 voice/fax
Guanajuato, GTO, Mexico

"If it looks like a bug, waddles like a bug,
and quacks like a bug, its a quack!"