Re: threaded reliability (was RE: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src/main http_main.c)

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

On Sun, 24 May 1998, Dean Gaudet wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 21 May 1998, Dale Couch wrote:
> 
> > I must say the process model is very nice because you all have the advantage
> > that the actual program restarts after X number of requests if it is
> > misbehaving.  We have to stop the entire server and restart it.  On a large
> > volume site there are people who get 'server not available' messages while
> > you are doing that.  Plus if the server decides to commit suicide there is
> > nothing to take its place.
> 
> Any suggestions?  ISTR that WIN32 doesn't allow multiple processes to use
> accept() on the same socket... it's not even a matter of whether they do
> it simultaneously or use a shared lock, they just can't do it period. 
> 
> I figure even with the NSPR work that we'll still support models which use
> fork() on unix to create a few heavy-weight processes and then schedule
> threads within those (the "MSM" model in my proposal for example).  But I
> don't think this is possible at all on WIN32.  any win32 experts care to
> enlighten me? 

<Microsoft mode on>
Just modify the client so it randomly picks a port between 80 and 90 to
connect on, then you can run 10 processes each on a different port.
</Microsoft off>

<Microsoft mode on, compatibility enabled>
Oh, that is what virtual hosts are for.  Just make a lot of virtual hosts
on different IP addresses and use round robin DNS.
</Microsoft off>

(no, I have no idea if it is possible to use multiple processes on Win32)

Re: threaded reliability (was RE: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src/main http_main.c)

[Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>]

On Sun, 24 May 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:

> <Microsoft mode on>
> Just modify the client so it randomly picks a port between 80 and 90 to
> connect on, then you can run 10 processes each on a different port.
> </Microsoft off>
> 
> <Microsoft mode on, compatibility enabled>
> Oh, that is what virtual hosts are for.  Just make a lot of virtual hosts
> on different IP addresses and use round robin DNS.
> </Microsoft off>

The second is not a completely unreasonable idea though.  It's a complete
kludge, but it is mostly transparent to the client, and so we could
support it (if microsoft lets you bind to multiple specific IP addresses
on the same port ... you never know, they messed up so much else.) 

Dean