httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <>
Subject Re: plz vote on tagging current CVS as APACHE_2_0_19
Date Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:02:26 GMT

> wrote:
> > Your going to lose information between restarts, or you are going to
> > require copying large chunks of shared memory on graceful restarts.
> If the requirement is to maintain exactly all of th individual values, then yes the
> info will either be lost or lots of copies will be required. If the requirement is
> to collect Apache statistics and collect statistics of active workers then no, info
> will not be lost and no copying is required. The values in the individual workers that
> are going away are summed up and the totalled Apache results are stored at a higher
> level. Those workers no longer exist.

Yes, the requirement is to keep the information about the threads that are
still processing requests.  Summarizing that data is not good enough.  If
the thread is still active, the scoreboard entry must still exist.

> You should never be able to start more processes than the config specifies. The
> user set the config for a reason. Creating more processes than are allowed in the
> config violates the principle of least astonishment in my opinion. Let the user
> define what their upper bound is. They know their system. Allow them to config
> in the amount of extra transitional processes that they determine their system
> can handle. We should not be guessing that we can start extra processes that
> weren't configed. IMHO this is just asking for trouble.

They have configured their system for the general case.  We are talking
about the edge case here.  The user has asked for 10 processes with 25
threads each.  What they are saying, is I want 250 threads.  If we are
all of a sudden under heavy load, then we have to give them 250 threads,
227 isn't good enough.


Ryan Bloom               
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131

View raw message