Re: xinetd vs php socket server

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Curtis Maurand <curtis@maurand.com> wrote: > > > Nathan Nobbe wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Bostjan Skufca <bostjan@a2o.si> wrote: > > > >> If you need high performance you probably already know that it will be > >> very > >> expensive CPU wise if workers are spawned on each request. If you don't, > >> I > >> would not bother with daemon and just use xinetd. You can always add > >> daemon-handling stuff later on. > >> > >> Well I do hope you find a good working solution with as little > >> inconvenience as possible, > >> b. > > > > > > hmm, wouldn't both the solutions most likely be forking? php daemon would > > fork since threading isn't supported, and xinetd, probly best to have it > > fork for the same reason apache is typically configured to fork. right? > > Speak for yourself. I've always configured my systems to thread. Since > IBM rewrote the threading library several years back (NPTL), Theading > works. I use the threading version of apache and threading is enabled in > PHP. > It would be nice to have a list of extensions which were known to not be thread safe. then one could take more comfort at the prospect of a threaded environment. -nathan