From: Stephen L. Ulmer (no email)
Date: Wed Feb 05 2003 - 16:57:15 EST
"leg+" == Lawrence Greenfield <leg+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
leg+> Yes, that would be desirable. The easiest way of doing this
leg+> would be to close the socket used to accept() new
leg+> connections. However, it's open in all of the children, so
leg+> closing it is infeasible.
leg+> The next option would be to have master accept() and then
leg+> immediately close() the connection. This raises interesting
leg+> blocking concerns and is thus somewhat harder to implement.
leg+> Thus the current solution seems acceptable.
Hmmm... what does Sendmail do? It's got lots of children, but still
manages to refuse connections when it gets busy (RefuseLA)... I kinda
like that behavior. I definitely like it better than keeping more and
more sockets open.
-- Stephen L. Ulmer Senior Systems Programmer http://www.ulmer.org/ Northeast Regional Data Center VOX: (352) 392-2061 University of Florida FAX: (352) 392-9440
|
|
|