Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Apache + mod_php performance
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 11:07:47 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <20241007110747.000030cc@yahoo.com>
References: <vcv0bl$39mnj$1@dont-email.me>
	<vdmq7c$3re7f$1@dont-email.me>
	<vdn7mf$3mc75$1@dont-email.me>
	<vdp8kn$a67s$1@dont-email.me>
	<vdp9f6$jbc$1@reader1.panix.com>
	<20241006181231.0000370b@yahoo.com>
	<vdvoeq$1jerg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2024 10:07:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2655464014886edffcf2dd8f1cf2f905";
	logging-data="1727727"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zqU8ZE0QdsWECmjbWr2a+xiSgtEd2OHU="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZsSf2havf9W9RgnZJ0XXr00OMeU=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 3495

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 00:35:36 -0400
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

> On 10/6/2024 11:12 AM, Michael S wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 17:43:02 -0000 (UTC)
> > cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
> >  
> >> In article <vdp8kn$a67s$1@dont-email.me>,
> >> Dave Froble  <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:  
> >>> On 10/3/2024 7:00 PM, Chris Townley wrote:  
> >>>> [snip]
> >>>> I don't remember George, but we have certainly woken up Dave! ;)
> >>>>
> >>>> and I am sure the troll is happy...  
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure whether I've been insulted?  
> >>
> >> I suspect the "troll" reference is to Lawrence.  Sadly, Arne can
> >> not help himself when it comes to resisting arguing with that
> >> clown.
> >>
> >> 	- Dan C.
> >>  
> >
> > Troll or not, but the question about ability to pass open TCP
> > socket to child process (or, may be, to unrelated process) under
> > VMS is a good question.
> > As a lurker, I am waiting for the expert answer with interest.
> >  
> 
> Well, some of the issue is in the text of the question.  What does
> one mean be "pass socket"?
> 
> When creating a socket, one can specify it to be shared.  What I was
> doing was passing the information to a worker process, then letting
> the worker process open the existing socket.
> 
> So, would that be considered "passing an open socket"?
> 

Yes, it would be.

On Windows one has to go through similar 3-stage procedure:
 - [in parent process] acquire magic record from the open socket by
   means of WSADuplicateSocket() 
 - pass the record to child by any of available IPC mechanisms
 - [in child process] use magic record to re-open socket with
WSASocket()

I never had a need of for it in practice. Looking at docs it seems
that the procedure above has at least one inconvenient aspect - the
target process has to exist at the moment of WSADuplicateSocket() call.
Still, I suppose that it's better than nothing.

> I can post some of the development code is anyone is interested.  I
> was working on the inter-process communications when I dropped the
> project.  I believe I did open the shared socket in the worker
> process.
> 

May be, others are interested in the code. 
For me, I'd rather read textual description of the procedure and war
story of making it work.