"Troy Johnson" <Troy.A.Johnson at state.mn.us> writes:

> >By comparison, using traditional CGI, each child spawns its own interpreter.
> >Since it's not inherited from the parent, sharing the memory doesn't come as
> >easily and any parts that aren't in .so libraries are likely to be duplicated
> >in each child.
> 
> Would it be advantageous to encapsulate most of the Perl interpreter in an
> .so library so that traditional CGIs could share that memory? I seem to
> remember something about that sort of thing being available (but not
> recommended yet) when compiling Perl 5.6.

Actually, copy-on-write should also catch the shared parts of the
separate interpreters in separate CGI's and keep them shared.  There
are still issues of per-interpreter writable memory that isn't shared,
and the startup time cost, of course.

Copy-on-write is cool; one of the things we TOPS-20 partisans were mad
at the VMS group about, at DEC back when, was that VMS didn't use
copy-on-write, when TOPS-20 had demonstrated for years how well it
worked.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet      /      Welcome to the future!      /      dd-b at dd-b.net
SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/          Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/