You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2005/06/27 21:17:02 UTC
Re: svn commit: r202027 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES
server/mpm_common.c
At 02:10 PM 6/27/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Do we need an entire request? Wouldn't a 'null request' be faster?
>>
>
>Define 'null request'.
Would OPTIONS * HTTP/1.[0|1] be more efficient than an actual
request?
Bill
Re: svn commit: r202027 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES
server/mpm_common.c
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 02:26 PM 6/27/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
>It would work, but it doesn't make any difference. The request is not
>actually served. The child pops out of accept(), and notices that it
>needs to die.
HUH? Perhaps true of shutdown, but if graceful works that
way, we are screwed. Graceful expects all requests to serve
without taking a hiccup. Once accept()ed, another listening
child doesn't get a chance to play catch.
Bill
Re: svn commit: r202027 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES server/mpm_common.c
Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 02:10 PM 6/27/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
>
>>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>Do we need an entire request? Wouldn't a 'null request' be faster?
>>>
>>
>>Define 'null request'.
>
>
> Would OPTIONS * HTTP/1.[0|1] be more efficient than an actual
> request?
>
It would work, but it doesn't make any difference. The request is not
actually served. The child pops out of accept(), and notices that it
needs to die.