head	1.5;
access;
symbols;
locks
	nobody:1.5; strict;
comment	@# @;


1.5
date	99.06.08.03.34.50;	author nobody;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.4;

1.4
date	99.05.21.23.28.55;	author nobody;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.3;

1.3
date	99.05.21.23.28.43;	author nobody;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2;

1.2
date	99.05.21.23.28.37;	author nobody;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.1;

1.1
date	99.05.21.23.28.31;	author nobody;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;


desc
@null
@


1.5
log
@null
@
text
@IDependOn-Set: 1
IDependOn-Set: 13
IDependOn-Set: 15
IDependOn-Set: 164
IDependOn-Set: 184
IDependOn-Set: 186
IDependOn-Set: 2
LastModifiedSecs: 927329335
Parent: 15
SequenceNumber: 2
Title: Is DSO significant better than static linking?
Part: 0
Author-Set: jon@@working-dogs.com
HideAttributions: 1
LastModifiedSecs: 927329335
Type: monospaced
Lines: 30
----------
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <cmcclanahan@@MYTOWNNET.COM>
To: SERVLET-INTEREST@@JAVA.SUN.COM
Subject: Re: Is DSO significant better than static linking?
Date: Fri, May 21, 1999, 4:16 PM


Bing Zhang wrote:

> I am developing a three tiers system:   applet ---> servlet (with JDBC)-->
> Oracle database. The servlets also uses some JNI for legacy code.
>
> I just finished testing my servlets with servletrunner on NT and  am going
> to move it as a production on Solaris 2.6. So I downloaded Apache 1.3.6 and
> Jserv 1.05b. But I am wondering whether I should compile them as DSO in my
> case? I anticipate hundreds simultaneous hits when it is put in work.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bing
>

I have not benchmarked it myself, but my understanding is that calls to
DSO-loaded modules in Apache are somewhat slower than calls to statically
linked modules.  Therefore, for maximum performance, you're better off linking
statically.  This does not inhibit your flexibilty with regards to JServ in
any way -- it just means that you need to recompile/relink Apache when you
want to add other Apache modules.

Craig McClanahan
EndPart: 0
@


1.4
log
@null
@
text
@d6 1
@


1.3
log
@null
@
text
@d7 1
a7 1
LastModifiedSecs: 927329323
d9 1
a9 1
SequenceNumber: 1
d11 37
@


1.2
log
@null
@
text
@d7 1
a7 1
LastModifiedSecs: 927329311
d9 2
a10 2
SequenceNumber: 0
Title: New Item
@


1.1
log
@null
@
text
@d4 1
@
