httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gonyou, Austin" <aus...@coremetrics.com>
Subject RE: [PATCH] threaded.c and apr_thread_create() failures
Date Fri, 27 Jul 2001 18:22:52 GMT
The question is getting whupped doing what? You can seldom define true
performance of an application, if they do not do what they are intended to
do. At this point, I think static service is the best check, versus anything
dymanmic what so ever. 

-- 
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: austin@coremetrics.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Ames [mailto:gregames@remulak.net]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 10:22 AM
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] threaded.c and apr_thread_create() failures
> 
> 
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > 
> > exit(APEXIT_CHILDFATAL) isn't too cool... the parent 
> process bails out
> > without cleaning stuff up
> 
> agreed, it sounds bad.  Is there more cleanup we could do without
> getting into trouble?  Do we need something in between exit() and
> clean_child_exit?
> 
> > this patch retries apr_thread_create() after an interval; 
> apache stays
> > healthy (though it doesn't free up system resources; it 
> merely assumes
> > they will free up after a time)
> 
> they may or may not free up
>  
> > maybe we shouldn't retry the thread creation endlessly?
>  
> > maybe we should sleep a different interval?
> 
> why don't we do an exponential backoff, starting at about a second and
> ending at about a minute?  If it doesn't work after a minute, I don't
> think there's any point in further retries.
> 
> Greg
> 

Mime
View raw message