Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 13:08:13 -0600 (MDT)
From: Marc Slemko <marcs@worldgate.com>
To: gander@voyager.netcomi.com
cc: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: To starve or not to starve (Starving sockets bug) (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96.970722182126.6318B-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970722124800.27085B-100000@valis.worldgate.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

In addition to what Dean said, how many Listen directives are you using?
Most servers should be able to get by without any.

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:16:47 +0600
> From: "Gerald D. Anderson" <gander@voyager.netcomi.com>
> To: apache-bugs@apache.org
> Subject: To starve or not to starve (Starving sockets bug)
> 
> Hey folks,
> 
>   Had kind of a quick question.  We are currently running apache on PPro 200s 
> runing Linux 2.0.(29,30).  We have between 300-700 virtual sites per machine 
> (34 machines).  Problem is that we are seeing a problem very similar to the 
> starving sockets issue (PR#467), however when I examine the src/conf.h the 
> serialized accept parm. is defined by default for Linux.  My question is, that 
> if serialized accept is defined is that a DEFINATE that we are not seeing the 
> exact same problem( which sounds the case to me), or is there some way we 
> could still be seeing the same starving sockets issue.  The symptom is servers 
> seeming to randomly quit servicing a port.
> 
> If I can be of any other assistance, please let me know.  Otherwise thanks!
> 
> Gerald Anderson
> Sys Admin.
> Netcom Interactive
> (972)481-2972
>  
> 
>