Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Thu 19th May 2011 21:31 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 474301
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
It may not be a completely fair comparison, but then it does suggest something about the scalability of each approach.
http://lwn.net/Articles/338407/
Actually, I still don't quite understand how this works, but it seems to me that the problem is that there a limitation to the number of connections which Apache can simultaneously keep open (or to the number of running threads, whichever is smaller). So for the comparison to be fair, IIS should have a similar limitation to the number of pending tasks.
And even then, the Apache guys have obviously not a good metric to detect if a connection is active or not here. If someone just keeps a connection open and does nothing with it, I'll simply ban that someone as soon as new incoming requests are coming. To follow the shop analogy : a cashier will be simply irritated by someone coming and paying with pennies if no one else is there, but if there are lots of people waiting in the queue, he'll use that excuse to either have the person pay in a faster way or kick it without its articles.
Edited 2011-05-24 11:31 UTC