apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Wes Garland" <...@page.ca>
Subject Re: Solaris shell
Date Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:10:54 GMT
Will:

Sure, I'll test that in production as soon as I have the chance  (might be a
little while -- big push on right now).  I just noticed that my production
boxes are running 1.3.41 as well, so the patch should slide in pretty good.

These days I've been seeing about 1 hang every 2-3 weeks.  When we had
slower hardware, it happened more often. Same thing when stuff gets busy....
so I'd better get the patch in before the Christmas break -- we normally
record pretty big peaks when the ball drops on New Year's eve.  I'll patch
it to call "/bin/apr-sh" or something like that, and flip apr-sh at the
filesystem level  to evaluate both shells.

Hmm. FWIW, the slower-hardware boxes also had more physical CPUs.  (quad
UltraSparc-II vs. dual UltraSparc-IIIi).

Wes

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:56 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wrowe@rowe-clan.net>wrote:

> Wes Garland wrote:
> > What's your current support-target for Solaris?
> >
> > /usr/xpg4/bin/sh might be another choice. Both installed virtually
> > everywhere.  I don't know which is better.
> >...
> > So - if you suspect that changing the shell might improve my
> > experience..I'll be patching my local 1.2 even before 1.3 comes out. :)
>
> Hi Wes, yes; I've tried that before, going to try it again here now that
> you've reminded me ;-)
>
> Can I suggest you apply that first patch to production, testing both the
> /usr/ksh and /usr/xpg4/bin/sh - and let us know which is more effective
> in -your- experience?
>
> Nothing beats the real world, at least not until the Singularity :)
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message