Ack. I *meant* to respond to this e-mail instead. So does anyone know if <Open|Free> BSD do the same thing? I've got a teeny box I wanted to run some mod_perl stuff on OpenBSD (yeah, I know not this list. I'm just asking once) Josh ___SIG___ On 30 May 2001, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > "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/ > _______________________________________________ > tclug-list mailing list > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >