rfc:socketactivation

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
rfc:socketactivation [2012/10/18 23:45] – [What about Upstart support?] davidstraussrfc:socketactivation [2012/10/18 23:51] – [Why not just use the ondemand process manager?] davidstrauss
Line 88: Line 88:
 ==== Why not just use the ondemand process manager? ==== ==== Why not just use the ondemand process manager? ====
  
-The ondemand process manager still keeps considerable memory +The ondemand process manager still keeps considerable memory allocated, and PHP-FPM currently has some idle CPU load when not processing requests. It's <1% of a core per service, but it adds up when you manage 500+ pools, each as a service for security/resource isolation, on a box.
-allocated, and PHP-FPM currently has some idle CPU load (<1% per +
-service, but it adds up when you manage 500+ pools on a box) when not +
-processing requests. +
- +
-The ondemand process manager doesn't solve the dependency issue +
-mentioned earlier (a web server requiring PHP-FPM to be ready) or +
-allow privileges to be dropped before PHP-FPM gets invoked at all. The +
-latter is useful for platform providers that let users configure +
-PHP-FPM for their individual use cases but want to provide assigned +
-"listening" sockets.+
  
 +The ondemand process manager doesn't solve the dependency issue mentioned earlier (a web server requiring PHP-FPM to be ready) or allow privileges to be dropped before PHP-FPM gets invoked at all. The latter is useful for platform providers that let users configure PHP-FPM for their individual use cases but want to provide assigned "listening" sockets.
 ==== What about Upstart support? ==== ==== What about Upstart support? ====
  
rfc/socketactivation.txt · Last modified: 2017/09/22 13:28 by 127.0.0.1

Page Tools