[stunnel-users] Dynamic hosts

Wed Jun 24 14:41:26 CEST 2009

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 02:37:13PM +0200, 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 until
> > >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 resources?
> 
> If you are starting several instances of stunnel, I don't expect them
> to share resources (other than the text segments of the shared
> objects).
> 
> 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.
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...was that supposed to be "...than it actually is"? :)

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
Peter Pentchev	roam at ringlet.net    roam at space.bg    roam at FreeBSD.org
PGP key:	http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
I am the thought you are now thinking.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.stunnel.org/pipermail/stunnel-users/attachments/20090624/4a48c13e/attachment.sig>