httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <>
Subject New error_log format (fwd)
Date Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:45:58 GMT
I could agree that this shouldn't perhaps be an error and perhaps it 
should be set to more than 4; perhaps some % of currently running servers?

On a small site with 5 servers normally running, starting 4 at 
once could be a big deal.

On a site with 1000 servers normally running, I'm not sure that 4 at once
is a big deal.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Brian Tiemann <>
>Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
>Subject: New error_log format
>Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:08:07 -0700
>Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
>Lines: 24
>Message-ID: <>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>Xref: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix:34569     

	Hi again--

	Just out of curiosity... in the new error_log format in Apache
1.3, how come spawning new servers is treated as such a dire thing?

[Tue Oct 21 20:31:36 1997] [error] server seems busy, spawning 4 children
(you may need to increase StartServers, or Min/MaxSpareServers)

	I thought Apache was designed to spawn new servers as load
required, and then to let them die off as directed by Min/MaxSpareServers.
That's indeed how it behaves for me, and the settings for my server are
about evenly matched with the number of httpd processes at any given time.
Yet whenever it needs to spawn a few new processes, I get the above
message in my error_log.

	It's just a semantics thing, I realize-- but shouldn't it be
considered less an "error" and more a "notice"? And should it really be so
stern about telling the administrator to reconfigure each time it appears?
Unless, of course, it's spawning 16 or more new processes at once... 


View raw message