Perrin Harkins wrote:
> On 10/17/07, Mark Maunder wrote:
>> Assuming threaded and prefork work equally well in my config, doesn't
>> it therefore make sense to run a threaded MPM with a small interpreter
>> pool instead of running prefork with a reverse proxy?

> Well, you're going to use more memory with threads, but if you don't
> mind that then there's no reason I know of to avoid it.
> I should also add that since I don't run threads my information on how
> the worker MPM works is all second hand. The memory thing is pretty
> well established though.

Plus there are lots of modules on CPAN that aren't threadsafe. So by using
threads you eliminate using those. I could be wrong, but I think GD is in that
category, but anything with XS needs to be written to be thread safe. The
problem with thread-safety is that you probably won't notice it on low traffic
(like development) and it's really hard to pinpoint when it does go wrong.

More and more systems and languages are going for a shared-nothing approach.
Especially now that OSes like Linux make having multiple processes much lighter
than they used to be.

Michael Peters
Plus Three, LP