Re: Apache + mod_php performance

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:
- How does listener get a device name?
- What is "channel"? Is it the same as 'socket'?
- How one "assigns" channel to device? I would guess that device has to
be open before that?
- Is device name of the socket system-global?
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?