Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro Newsgroups: comp.os.vms Subject: Re: Apache + mod_php performance Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:40:03 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 22:40:03 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bdf142e3b9878dfa03dc2566703c0971"; logging-data="396911"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19QFWcEC9ZMMbsOlbI1GH9K" User-Agent: Pan/0.160 (Toresk; ) Cancel-Lock: sha1:toV0rfSVpeuN+pnyGuupA5Rzoxc= Bytes: 1645 On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 09:44:14 -0500, Craig A. Berry wrote: > Whoever invented the term apparently thought fork() was the only > way to create a subprocess. It is the most natural way in this case, because it creates a complete copy of the parent process, which is what you want. > On VMS it will obviously use LIB$SPAWN or SYS$CREPRC. Not only is that more expensive, it also requires additional setup to recreate the effect of fork(2).