Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Apache + mod_php performance
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 19:13:21 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vdk60h$cjo$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <vcv0bl$39mnj$1@dont-email.me> <vdk193$3auiu$2@dont-email.me> <vdk1iv$37f8q$5@dont-email.me> <vdk2ju$3bapl$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 19:13:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="12920"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 3471
Lines: 69

In article <vdk2ju$3bapl$1@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley  <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>On 2024-10-02, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 10/2/2024 1:52 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2024-10-02, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> On 10/2/2024 11:07 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>> In article <vdjmq4$37f8q$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> Arne Vajhøj  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/2/2024 10:47 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>> You do not seem to understand how this is qualitatively
>>>>>>> different from your test program not sending `Connection: close`
>>>>>>> with its single request per connection, and then blocking until
>>>>>>> the server times it out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is qualitative different from what you are imaging.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The client does not block until the server times out.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what, exactly, does it do?
>>>>
>>>> It moves on to next request.
>>> 
>>> Does it reuse an existing connection for the next request (which is
>>> what you have told the server you are going to do due to your keep-alive
>>> settings) or does it always create a brand-new connection for the next
>>> request ?
>>
>> New connection.
>>
>> It is simulating multiple browser instances.
>>
>> Browser #1 open connection to request the page - keep
>> the connection alive, because it may want to use it later.
>>
>> Browser #2 open connection to request the page - keep
>> the connection alive, because it may want to use it later.
>>
>
>Are you closing down the current instance of the client and then
>starting up a new instance of the client ?
>
>or
>
>Are you keeping the existing process running and creating a new
>instance from it ?
>
>In either case, are you _cleanly_ and _fully_ closing the existing
>connection _before_ you exit or create a new connection in the existing
>process ?

It seems clear that it does not.

When asked about keep-alives initially, Arne said that the
client does not make use of persistent connections.  Subsequent
posts revelated that it actually does; he seemed to be confused
about how the protocol actually works there.

He also posted this was a bug in the VMS implementation of
Apache, going as far as to suggest something about expectations
due to careless porting.  But the same behavior manifests itself
on other systems.

Arne keeps moving the goal posts of what, exactly, he claims is
wrong and why, while being cagey about how exactly he's testing
and what the experimental setup looks like.  It's intern-level
investigation, at best.

	- Dan C.