httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: snprintf & release schedule
Date Sat, 18 Jan 1997 13:55:40 GMT
Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> > rasmus@lerdorf.on.ca wrote:
> > > 
> > > > We are tracking multiple targets; it isn't voodo, but it is hard to make
> > > > corrolations when there appears to be more than one problem WRT
> > > > FIN_WAIT_2. It is slow going because I can't reproduce the problem, so
> > > > everything is a guess. 
> > > 
> > > I tuned out on this thread long ago because I really don't have a clue in
> > > that part of the code.  However, having checked my error_log on one of
> > > the machines I run, I see:
> > > 
> > > [Fri Jan 17 10:14:59 1997] shutdown: Connection reset by peer
> > > [Fri Jan 17 10:14:59 1997] - lingering_close
> > > [Fri Jan 17 10:15:37 1997] shutdown: Connection reset by peer
> > > [Fri Jan 17 10:15:37 1997] - lingering_close
> > > [Fri Jan 17 10:15:51 1997] shutdown: Connection reset by peer
> > > [Fri Jan 17 10:15:51 1997] - lingering_close
> > > [Fri Jan 17 10:17:13 1997] shutdown: Connection reset by peer
> > > [Fri Jan 17 10:17:13 1997] - lingering_close
> > > [Fri Jan 17 10:17:50 1997] shutdown: Connection reset by peer
> > > [Fri Jan 17 10:17:50 1997] - lingering_close
> > > [Fri Jan 17 10:18:56 1997] shutdown: Connection reset by peer
> > > [Fri Jan 17 10:18:56 1997] - lingering_close
> > > [Fri Jan 17 10:20:54 1997] shutdown: Connection reset by peer
> > > [Fri Jan 17 10:20:54 1997] - lingering_close
> > > 
> > > I assume this is the symptom of this problem?  It looks like there is 
> > > some correlation between these errors and some specific entries in the
> > > access_log.  Before I start writing some scripts to dig out this information,
> > > please confirm that this is the symptom we are chasing.
> > > 
> > 
> > It's looking like the shutdown and close call are still being
> > done even if the socket fd is not longer applicable (ie: the read
> > returned ECONNRESET)
> 
> Which is not necessarily a problem.  I mean hey, if the socket has already
> gone bye-bye who cares if we do an extra close.  It may reflect problems
> elsewhere in the code though.
> 
> I would suggest that this _may_ be a symptom of the problem and is worth
> investigating, but you should not make an assumption that they must be
> related since I don't think anyone has established that for sure yet.
> 

True, BUT it means that the code is not being made aware when
the socket dies and the sd is no longer applicable... Maybe a
timer is going off somewhere at that time and....

-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"

Mime
View raw message