DSO or static on RH9 ?

[Tom Gazzini <to...@barzakh.co.uk>]

I'm trying to decide whether to buid mod_perl as DSO for a production
environment.

To quote from Practical mod_perl, "The server runs approximately 5%
slower on some platforms, because position-independent code (PIC)
sometimes needs complicated assembler tricks for relative addressing,
which are not necessarily as fast as those for absolute addressing"

Does mod_perl built as a DSO run slower on Apache 1.3.29 on RedHat 9 ?

Thanks,
TOm



-- 
Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html

Re: DSO or static on RH9 ?

[Ged Haywood <ge...@www2.jubileegroup.co.uk>]

Hi there,

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Tom Gazzini wrote:

> I'm trying to decide whether to buid mod_perl as DSO for a production
> environment.

Build static if you possibly can.

> Does mod_perl built as a DSO run slower on Apache 1.3.29 on RedHat 9 ?

The speed difference is completely insignificant.  However if you read
the rest of the documentation you will see that DSO is still, after all
these years, marked as experimental.  On some systems it just doesn't
work at all.  There have been many reports of strange behaviour with DSO
during my time on this list, although I have to say that nowadays there
are a lot less than there used to be - largely I think as a result of the 
efforts of a guy called Dan Jacobowicz at Red Hat.

All the same, if you trawl through the list for mention of DSO, I think
you'll find that after a while you will agree that it can be a risk, and
isn't worth the trouble.

73,
Ged.




-- 
Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html