httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject Re: Apache 1.2b7-dev performance
Date Fri, 07 Feb 1997 06:15:03 GMT
Do we have a list of OSs that properly support SO_LINGER?  I'm trying to
figure out how I could test that... 'cause I have to run with
-DNO_LINGCLOSE on hotwired's IRIX 5.3 servers to avoid FIN_WAIT_2 death. 
I haven't tried SO_LINGER because I'm not sure how to discern between good
and bad SO_LINGER. 


On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Marc Slemko wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Ed Korthof wrote:
> > I tried compiling with the NO_LINGCLOSE option and sure enough, Apache
> > 1.2b7-dev (with Deans' patches + my mod_include patch) performed as well as
> > Apache 1.1.3.
> > 
> > I'd like to add a section to the documentation on improving performance,
> > describing lingering_close, why we've added it, and the possibility that using
> > NO_LINGCLOSE will substantially increase web server performance.  Under certain
> > rather specific conditions, it appears that the increase in capacity might be
> > as high as 50%; a more normal improvement is around 10-20%.
> There is already some description of lingering_close() on the
> misc/fin_wait_2.html page; when I figure out how I need to explain more I
> will add it there.
> I'm not sure that recommending disabling it for a performance gain is a
> good idea.  Note that the performance loss from using it should be
> completely gone when Apache is threaded; at least using the model RST
> implemented.
> Did you try just replacing the timer it uses so instead of hard_timeout()
> it sets one for 15 seconds or so?  The only reason there should be any
> performance loss is because of children hanging around for longer.  If the
> OS properly supports SO_LINGER, that should be able to be used instead
> without the performance hit.

View raw message