Mailing List Archive: StartServers

StartServers

Oct 11, 1995, 2:29 PM

Post #1 of 4 (261 views)

Can anyone think of a good reason for StartServers to default to 5? As far as
I can tell, MinFreeServers and MaxFreeServers supply all the control required
for all but the busiest sites; changing StartServers should almost _never_ be
needed.

However, if you wish to reduce MinFreeServers to below 5, (a common setting
for low usage sites) then one has to change StartServers. (To avoid
extra processes being started and then killed.)

Summary: StartServers is irrelevant, and its default should reflect this.
The default should either be 1, or (better) MinFreeServers.

David.

Re: StartServers [ In reply to ]

drtr at ast

Oct 11, 1995, 2:32 PM

Post #2 of 4 (266 views)

Permalink

Of course, I meant MinSpareServers and MaxSpareServers (not ...FreeServers)
and (para 2) `If you wish to reduce MaxSpareServers below 5...'
(not MinFreeServers)

David.

Re: StartServers [ In reply to ]

drtr at ast

Oct 11, 1995, 4:40 PM

Post #3 of 4 (256 views)

Permalink

I've uploaded a patch for this.

David.

Re: StartServers [ In reply to ]

andrew at tees

Oct 11, 1995, 8:30 PM

Post #4 of 4 (261 views)

Permalink

David R:
> Can anyone think of a good reason for StartServers to default to 5? As far as
> I can tell, MinFreeServers and MaxFreeServers supply all the control required
> for all but the busiest sites; changing StartServers should almost _never_ be
> needed.
>
> However, if you wish to reduce MinFreeServers to below 5, (a common setting
> for low usage sites) then one has to change StartServers. (To avoid
> extra processes being started and then killed.)
>
> Summary: StartServers is irrelevant, and its default should reflect this.
> The default should either be 1, or (better) MinFreeServers.

...

> Of course, I meant MinSpareServers and MaxSpareServers (not ...FreeServers)
> and (para 2) `If you wish to reduce MaxSpareServers below 5...'
> (not MinFreeServers)

I was never any good at english comprehension. Could you restate your
intention?

> I've uploaded a patch for this.

Don't get me wrong. Is there gonna be any fuss if I -1 this because it's
a functional enhancement which changes the semantics of the configuration
file. Wouldn't sensible documentation (ie examples) obviate the need to
play with the code, in an area that is sure to be changed again post 1.0.

> David.

Cheers,
Ay.