"Troy Johnson" <Troy.A.Johnson at state.mn.us> writes: > >By comparison, using traditional CGI, each child spawns its own interpreter. > >Since it's not inherited from the parent, sharing the memory doesn't come as > >easily and any parts that aren't in .so libraries are likely to be duplicated > >in each child. > > Would it be advantageous to encapsulate most of the Perl interpreter in an > .so library so that traditional CGIs could share that memory? I seem to > remember something about that sort of thing being available (but not > recommended yet) when compiling Perl 5.6. Actually, copy-on-write should also catch the shared parts of the separate interpreters in separate CGI's and keep them shared. There are still issues of per-interpreter writable memory that isn't shared, and the startup time cost, of course. Copy-on-write is cool; one of the things we TOPS-20 partisans were mad at the VMS group about, at DEC back when, was that VMS didn't use copy-on-write, when TOPS-20 had demonstrated for years how well it worked. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / dd-b at dd-b.net SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/