From new-httpd-owner@apache.org Mon Feb 3 17:09:43 1997 Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.4/V2.0) id RAA04352; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:09:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from scanner.worldgate.com by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.4/V2.0) with ESMTP id RAA04348; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:09:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from znep.com (uucp@localhost) by scanner.worldgate.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with UUCP id SAA15532 for new-httpd@hyperreal.com; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 18:09:37 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (marcs@localhost) by alive.ampr.ab.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA29106 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 18:03:04 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 18:03:04 -0700 (MST) From: Marc Slemko X-Sender: marcs@alive.ampr.ab.ca To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Subject: Re: [SHOWSTOPPER] SIGHUP caused a fatal and silent crash In-Reply-To: <199702031945.LAA02017@gabber.c2.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, sameer wrote: > > I saw this at least as early as 1.2b2; I know there have been some changes > > since, but I think none which would create this behavior, since the parent > > is actually waiting for each of the children (if'd it'd forgotten, things > > might be fine since it'd go on with the restart procedure (of course, it > > probably couldn't bind the address, so it'd probably die outright)). > > I've seen intermittent problems where -HUP would cause 'can't > bind to port' errors. It appears that -HUP isn't killing all of the > child processes. That is a different story, and possibly a different problem. In that case, it looks like Apache is loosing track of one of its child processes. The way the code is now, if Apache knows about a child process it is darn hard for the parent to go on without the child exiting. > I will hopefully find some time to do some debugging on this. > > -- > Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770 > President FAX: 510-986-8777 > C2Net > http://www.c2.net/ sameer@c2.net >