Re: CGIDEV2 performance versus Net.Data

["Leif Svalgaard" <leif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Nathan M. Andelin <nandelin@relational-data.com>
> I've pretty much come around to accept that the use of named activation
> groups are a key to CGI scalability.  Named activation dramatically cuts
CPU
> time.
>
> The concern that remains (perhaps only in my mind) is the issue of memory.
> We have pointed out that the mechanics are already in place to dynamically
> add HTTP Servers BCH Jobs to support the user load, up to a configurable
> limit.  Let's say that limit is the system default of 40.  Let's also say
> that your application consists of 100 CGI programs.
>
> It seems to me that named activation opens the possibility of 4,000
> instances of CGI programs to be running concurrently (100 CGI programs
times
> 40 BCH server Jobs).

the programs are 'active'. at any given time, there are tens of thousands
of active programs. On my little system where I am the only user doing
nothing
there are right now 9,987 programs active. this does not seem to slow down
the
system.