Re: Apache + mod_php performance

On 10/11/2024 6:11 AM, Michael S wrote:

On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 23:01:13 -0400
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>

On 10/7/2024 4:07 AM, Michael S wrote:

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 00:35:36 -0400
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>

On 10/6/2024 11:12 AM, Michael S wrote:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 17:43:02 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
>

In article <vdp8kn$a67s$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble  <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

On 10/3/2024 7:00 PM, Chris Townley wrote:

[snip]
I don't remember George, but we have certainly woken up Dave!
;)
>
and I am sure the troll is happy...

>
I'm not sure whether I've been insulted?

>
I suspect the "troll" reference is to Lawrence.  Sadly, Arne can
not help himself when it comes to resisting arguing with that
clown.
>
- Dan C.
>

>
Troll or not, but the question about ability to pass open TCP
socket to child process (or, may be, to unrelated process) under
VMS is a good question.
As a lurker, I am waiting for the expert answer with interest.
>

>
Well, some of the issue is in the text of the question.  What does
one mean be "pass socket"?
>
When creating a socket, one can specify it to be shared.  What I
was doing was passing the information to a worker process, then
letting the worker process open the existing socket.
>
So, would that be considered "passing an open socket"?
>

>
Yes, it would be.
>
On Windows one has to go through similar 3-stage procedure:
 - [in parent process] acquire magic record from the open socket by
   means of WSADuplicateSocket()
 - pass the record to child by any of available IPC mechanisms
 - [in child process] use magic record to re-open socket with
WSASocket()
>
I never had a need of for it in practice. Looking at docs it seems
that the procedure above has at least one inconvenient aspect - the
target process has to exist at the moment of WSADuplicateSocket()
call. Still, I suppose that it's better than nothing.
>

I can post some of the development code is anyone is interested.  I
was working on the inter-process communications when I dropped the
project.  I believe I did open the shared socket in the worker
process.
>

>
May be, others are interested in the code.
For me, I'd rather read textual description of the procedure and war
story of making it work.
>

>
Actually, simple.
>
1) Create the socket in listener process
2) Pass device name to worker process
3) Assign a channel to the device in worker process
4) deassign the channel in listener process (if desired)
>

>
There are few pieces in your simple explanation that I don't understand:

I posted the sample code.
Understand, I used the QIO interface, not CRTL.

- How does listener get a device name?

Note that we're discussing BG devices.

- What is "channel"? Is it the same as 'socket'?

Channel is VMS channel

- How one "assigns" channel to device? I would guess that device has to
be open before that?

If one has a device name, then one can assign a channel to that device.

- Is device name of the socket system-global?

Yes, I think so.

If yes, does it mean that any process in the system that happens to
know a name can open a device and assign it to channel?

If shared access is specified, then yes.
--
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486