[ic] Which is best for performance/functionality mod_interchange or interchange under mod_perl

[interchange-users@icdevgroup.org (Mike Heins)]

Quoting Jeff Dafoe (jeff@badtz-maru.com):
> > Does anybody know the relative strengths or weakness of using mod_perl
> with
> > interchange versus mod_interchange?
> 
>     I can think of one.  mod_perl creates these gargantuan apache processes.
> Unless you are running multiple servers, one of these monsters will be
> forked for every request, static or dynamic.

No, not exactly correct. Apache pre-forks the server processes and they
handle MaxRequestsPerProcess pages before dying and being re-spawned.

>  As an example, the retrieval
> of every image on your page will result in the spawning of a 20 meg apache
> process.
>     With mod_interchange, apache remains normal sized.  The huge interchange
> processes are only spawned to process dynamic requests.  You can then
> process more concurrent requests in the same amount of memory.
> 

Actually, if you have mod_perl enabled putting Interchange there will
save memory, for you don't have extra perl interpreters laying around.

I am not saying that this is a performance win for sure. It will depend
on your setup and mix of static/dynamic pages. If you do something like have
Tux serve images, it will probably be a win though.

-- 
Mike Heins
Perusion -- Expert Interchange Consulting    http://www.perusion.com/
phone +1.513.523.7621      <mike@perusion.com>

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak. -- unknown