Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Apache + mod_php performance
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 14:42:49 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <vdmokf$3r6ke$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vcv0bl$39mnj$1@dont-email.me> <vdjjpv$37f8q$2@dont-email.me>
 <vdjme2$r42$4@reader1.panix.com> <vdjmq4$37f8q$3@dont-email.me>
 <vdjnk0$2ob$1@reader1.panix.com> <vdjocl$37f8p$3@dont-email.me>
 <vdk193$3auiu$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 20:43:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0704d581afbac850f643429b867ccc68";
	logging-data="4037262"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18o6cQcebq3xvItrGQc387XiGlJpuo4NUI="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:r2fcTxXp/p/PL6EWUwm6A/f5opY=
In-Reply-To: <vdk193$3auiu$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3415

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 ?
>
> Simon.
>

I don't work much with this kind of stuff, but I have questions?

If a connection is persistent, then there is already a connection, no need for a 
"brand-new" connection.  However, perhaps you're asking whether the client uses 
an existing connection, or always issues a new connection request?

In the web services I've implemented in the past, the protocol was rather 
simple.  Request a connection, perform transaction, close connection.

It did bite us on the ass one time.  The client would be requesting inventory 
status for individual parts.  The programmer on the client side (not us) was 
issuing requests for one part number for each connection.  That wasn't good. 
Once we pointed out to him/her that the protocol would accept multiple part 
numbers in a single transaction, could be thousands, the problem disappeared.

The thing is, either have well defined transactions, or, be a 
"jack-of-all-trades" and do nothing well.

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486