You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to modperl@perl.apache.org by Jason Rosenberg <jr...@shopzilla.com> on 2007/03/23 22:06:18 UTC
Mod_Perl2 vs. Mod_Perl1, MPM_WORKER....
Hi,
I¹m just wondering what the mod_perl intelligencia thinks about the choice
between using mod_perl1 vs. mod_perl2....
Is there a reason not to go with the newer mod_perl2 (and Apache2, of
course). Is it stable and well accepted at this point? It seems like a
great number of people still use mod_perl1.....
Further, what success have people had using threading with mod_perl2, using
MPM_WORKER?
Jason
Re: Mod_Perl2 vs. Mod_Perl1, MPM_WORKER....
Posted by Perrin Harkins <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 3/26/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Careful with FUD, threading by definition is lighter weight than processes,
> although the older Linux threads certainly didn't measure up.
We're not talking about Linux threads or apache threaded MPMs in
general here. The issue is Perl threads. They are implemented in a
way that makes them slower and heavier than a prefork model in most
cases, due to duplication without copy-on-write benefits. This has
been pretty thoroughly covered before so please check the mailing
archives if you want more information.
For static content, the worker MPM seems to work very well. I expect
it would be a good choice for your reverse proxy server.
- Perrin
Re: Mod_Perl2 vs. Mod_Perl1, MPM_WORKER....
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Perrin Harkins wrote:
> On 3/26/07, Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org> wrote:
>> > Further, what success have people had using threading with mod_perl2,
>> > using MPM_WORKER?
>>
>> Other than for some testing of modules I haven't found a need to use
>> either the threaded or worker MPMs.
>
> I'd second that. The general advice is to avoid using threads if you
> are on a unix-like system. They are slower and use more memory than
> the prefork MPM on those systems.
Hmmm, been using it here for about 6 years.
Careful with FUD, threading by definition is lighter weight than processes,
although the older Linux threads certainly didn't measure up.
Bill
Re: Mod_Perl2 vs. Mod_Perl1, MPM_WORKER....
Posted by Perrin Harkins <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 3/26/07, Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org> wrote:
> > Further, what success have people had using threading with mod_perl2,
> > using MPM_WORKER?
>
> Other than for some testing of modules I haven't found a need to use
> either the threaded or worker MPMs.
I'd second that. The general advice is to avoid using threads if you
are on a unix-like system. They are slower and use more memory than
the prefork MPM on those systems.
- Perrin
Re: Mod_Perl2 vs. Mod_Perl1, MPM_WORKER....
Posted by Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>.
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:06:18 -0400
Jason Rosenberg <jr...@shopzilla.com> wrote:
> I¹m just wondering what the mod_perl intelligencia thinks about the
> choice between using mod_perl1 vs. mod_perl2....
>
> Is there a reason not to go with the newer mod_perl2 (and Apache2, of
> course). Is it stable and well accepted at this point? It seems
> like a great number of people still use mod_perl1.....
I can't think of a reason not to go with mod_perl2, I use it daily
and have for many months.
> Further, what success have people had using threading with mod_perl2,
> using MPM_WORKER?
Other than for some testing of modules I haven't found a need to use
either the threaded or worker MPMs.
---------------------------------
Frank Wiles <fr...@wiles.org>
http://www.wiles.org
---------------------------------