From new-httpd-owner-new-httpd-archive=hyperreal.org@apache.org Sat May 02 20:48:07 1998 Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 17911 invoked by uid 6000); 2 May 1998 20:48:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 17904 invoked from network); 2 May 1998 20:48:05 -0000 Received: from valis.worldgate.com (marcs@198.161.84.2) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 2 May 1998 20:48:05 -0000 Received: from localhost (marcs@localhost) by valis.worldgate.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA22726 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 14:48:04 -0600 (MDT) Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 14:48:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Marc Slemko To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Child processes signalling server abort In-Reply-To: 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@apache.org On Sat, 2 May 1998, Dean Gaudet wrote: > > > On Sat, 2 May 1998, Marc Slemko wrote: > > > Would it be a good thing to wait until we have a few child processes > > exiting with childfatal over a certain period before the parent exits? > > It may be possible that some freak error could cause one normally > > fatal error. We don't want the whole thing to exit too quickly. > > I'm not sure it's worth it. I'd rather see the patch go into use, and if > we find that it can exit too easily then we can fix that... the reason I'm > concerned is because we'd have to define what a good rate of fatals is, > and we'd have to get that code correct. What Jim has now is simple, and > we can be certain that it'll stop things when they should be stopped. But the problem is that it can also bring the entire server to a crashing halt if there is some situation we aren't aware of. I don't know if that is acceptable. That is bad. Having the server keep running and not work is better in my books than exiting when it shouldn't. This assumes, of course, a dedicated machine for the server.