[stunnel-users] Dynamic hosts

[Terry Riegel]

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  
>>> 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.

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.