[stunnel-users] Dynamic hosts
riegel at clearimageonline.com
Wed Jun 24 14:48:40 CEST 2009
On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Ludolf Holzheid wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-24 07:57:30 -0400, Terry Riegel wrote:
>>> However, on modern operating systems, fork()ing is not as
>>> expensive as
>>> it looks like. In most cases, the text segment is shared between the
>>> two processes and the pages on data/BSS segments are not copied
>>> changed ('copy-on-write'). I don't know if the usage of OS resources
>>> is larger for the multi-threaded or the multi-tasked approach.
>> Perhaps I am confused, but are you saying that when firing up stunnel
>> twice with two separate configuration files they are sharing
> If you are starting several instances of stunnel, I don't expect them
> to share resources (other than the text segments of the shared
> If, in contrast, a running stunnel process fork()s into two (or, as in
> your case, 6 processes), these new processes will share resources.
> What I wanted to say is, you can't add the resource usage of the
> single processes in a process tree to get the overall resource usage.
> A daemon fork()ing into two or more single processes seems much more
> expensive (w.r.t. resource usage) than it looks like.
Thanks for the clarification. Thats what I thought. So it sounds like
to use stunnel for my needs I would have to start and stop the process
for every cgi connection. It seems like it would be beneficial to have
it dynamically add/remove hosts during runtime.
Thanks for the information. I appreciate your answers.
More information about the stunnel-users