Re: SMP: process-specific options

On 02/21/2010 02:36 PM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> sön 2010-02-21 klockan 00:52 -0700 skrev Alex Rousskov:
>
>> I agree that number and name do not match well. I struggled with this. I
>> did not want to use process_id to avoid the clash with system PID. Just
>> "process" sounds too generic and difficult to extend though. Would
>> process_number be better than process_name? Any other ideas?
>
> Does it need to be a number?

Not really. For now, since each process does everything, numeral-based
names are natural. It also makes using ${process_name} macro in file
names and such easy.

However, we can use "squid1", "squid2", "squid3", etc. process names
that are not numbers. Would that be better?

Eventually, we will probably have more specialized processes like
"cacheN" or perhaps "ecapN".

Please note that the CPU affinity hack where every process gets its own
core would not work if ${process_name} is not a number, but we can come
up with another hack to support that without enumerating all
processes/cores.

Thank you,

Alex.
Received on Sun Feb 21 2010 - 22:14:43 MST