httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cliff Woolley <>
Subject Re: Currently known issues with 2.0.23
Date Wed, 08 Aug 2001 15:17:08 GMT
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:

> On Tuesday 07 August 2001 23:53, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > Known issues with 2.0.23:
> >
> > 1) Win9x, WinME, and Netware do not yet work.
> > 2) Unix: The threaded MPM might take longer than expected to restart or
> >    shutdown on very-low-traffic (near idle) servers.  This is due to the
> I dislike this.  It's the "near idle" that bothers me.  We rely on the
> OS to never starve a thread to get any restart or shutdown.  The
> server could easily be getting hit moderately, and not shutdown
> correctly.  I don't want to see us down-play the problem, and have
> people think that the server is working when it isn't.  There is a
> real chance that an admin can do a graceful restart, and still be
> serving requests off the old config for a very long time.

How about "servers getting very few requests" instead of
"very-low-traffic (near idle) servers"?

I threw the "near idle" bit in there to emphasize that (a) it effects
people running test servers that have nobody connecting to them at all,
and (b) that our definition here of "very low traffic" is not 100 conn/sec
as opposed to 1000 conn/sec, but more on the order of just a handful of
conn/sec, since 100 conn/sec might be seen as very low traffic by some
administrators.  ;-)

As per Greg's suggestion, I'll also try to split up that paragraph into
two to make it easier to read.

As for the shutdown issue... is it really an issue?  Generally speaking,
when I do an apachectl graceful, I can see the issue of which you speak,
but when I do an apachectl shutdown, it just goes.  Maybe I'm missing it.

Also, as I mentioned last night, ungraceful for threaded seems to be


   Cliff Woolley
   Charlottesville, VA

View raw message