httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <>
Subject Re: lingering_close and performance
Date Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:56:45 GMT
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Ed Korthof wrote:

> Sorry I've been uninvolved for the past week and a half; I've been too
> busy to deal with the topics going on effectively.  I like the solutions
> to the lingering_close problem which I've seen discussed here; for all
> that I think the performance hit is a potential problem (20% is not
> overstating it under certain conditions), functionality is also relevant. 
> One thing comes to mind about the SIGHUP problem I've been seeing -- it
> appears that it may go away when Apache is compiled with NO_LINGCLOSE.  I
> can't test this easily, because none of the servers I administer have
> sufficient relative traffic (this problem was easy to reproduce under high
> traffic, but almost non-existent under low traffic).  But someone (I can't
> seem to find the mail) mentioned possible problems in some version of
> lingering_close, and I figured I'd mention it.  If there was a problem in
> l_c where SIGHUP was blocked, this would explain why and when the bug
> occured, as well as why it isn't reproducible except under high load.

I don't think a HUP should be blocked by anyting l_c is doing.  In any
case, I see the same problem with 1.1.  We _shouldn't_ be loosing signals
from what I understand, but if the OS is it would make sense that it
happens when there are many more children running.  I have never had a
case where a second HUP to the child didn't fix it.  Would be interesting
to add some debugging to my kernel to trace what processes signals are
sent to.  I would not be suprised to learn that the cause of the problem
is something else, but....

View raw message