Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id TAA12627;
 Thu, 8 Feb 1996 19:28:14 -0800
Received: from ooo.lanl.gov by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id
 TAA12594; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 19:28:10 -0800
Received: by ooo.lanl.gov
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA075326460; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 20:27:40 -0700
From: Rob Hartill <hartill@ooo.lanl.gov>
Message-Id: <199602090327.AA075326460@ooo.lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: socket error on APACHE v1.0]
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 96 20:27:40 MST
In-Reply-To: <199602090421.XAA25952@luers.qosina.com>;
 from "Aram Mirzadeh" at Feb 8, 96 11:21 pm
X-Organization: Theoretical Division, T-8. Los Alamos National Laboratory
X-Snail: LANL Theoretical Divi' T-8, MS B285, P.O Box 1663,
 Los Alamos NM 87545
X-Marks-The-Spot: Doh !
X-Url: http://nqcd.lanl.gov/~hartill/
X-Cessive-Use-Of-Headers: check
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com


> > This could very likely be caused by the sending of SIGHUP once per day.
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Apache just has this problem.  And we're not addressing it
> why I don't know. 

We can't address what we can't see. Some of us simply don't get these
problems. They seem to be platform dependent, with linux being the
biggest sufferer. An earlier user explanation I forwarded seemed to
blame slow OS responses to a lost connection that had just been
negotiated and was awaiting a process to accept it.

If you think more can be done, what do you suggest?

rob