From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9722 invoked by alias); 27 May 2004 14:54:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 9639 invoked from network); 27 May 2004 14:54:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dessent.net) (66.17.244.20) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 27 May 2004 14:54:05 -0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=dessent.net) by dessent.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BTML1-0001zP-Dy for cygwin@cygwin.com; Thu, 27 May 2004 14:58:31 +0000 Message-ID: <40B60115.CF02EAF3@dessent.net> Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 15:13:00 -0000 From: Brian Dessent Organization: My own little world... MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Looking for new apache maintainer References: <20040525234836.GA2243@coe.bosbc.com> <40B53400.668ECCEF@dessent.net> <000b01c443cb$c6c0e950$78d96f83@robinson.cam.ac.uk> <40B5B751.9EB8E456@dessent.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00912.txt.bz2 Andrew DeFaria wrote: > My understanding is that the Cygwin port of Apache 1.x is also > significantly slower than the native Apache 1.x but this didn't stop > people from wanting a Cygwin version of 1.x. Or is there something in > 2.x (this thread MPM thing) that would make a Cygwin port of Apache 2.x > much, much slower than the native one? You're correct that 1.x also suffers a performance penalty compared to the native win32 version. However 1.x can only operate in the prefork mode which is not suitable to Windows since process creation is relatively expensive. Thus both versions are pokey. However, with the advent of 2.x the method of allocating workers is modular (the MPM) and so you can choose to have them as threads or as the old prefork style, among others. With threads the performance under Windows is much improved. I suspect (but have not tested) that the Cygwin overhead would be even more apparent in that case, because 2.x has been specifically designed to get good performance under win32 natively, whereas 1.x was never intended for such systems. As far as I know the popularity of Cygwin Apache is for developing and testing web applications that will eventually reside on unix servers. In that department 1.x is more popular by a huge margin due to its stability, known quirks, and ability to work well with non-thread-safe PHP extensions (as well as general stubbornness of sysadmins who avoid 2.x.) Thus demand for 1.x/Cygwin should naturally be much higher as well. If you're actually interested in running a server then the native version is probably better. > BTW: Thanks for volunteering for this. Does this mean that a Cygwin > version of mod_php would be working again? Yes, I intend to do that. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/