Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 4855 invoked by uid 500); 2 Feb 2002 01:34:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 4842 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2002 01:34:43 -0000 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 17:34:51 -0800 From: Justin Erenkrantz To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2) Message-ID: <20020202013451.GG22287@ebuilt.com> Mail-Followup-To: Justin Erenkrantz , dev@httpd.apache.org References: <3C5B3702.9080000@apache.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C5B3702.9080000@apache.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.0i X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1-pre3 (http://amavis.org/) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:46:58PM -0800, Ian Holsman wrote: > the NW patch is in there. > the non-crap tarballs are in the /dist directory. > > > > who would have thought making a tar ball would be so hard. No kidding. It'll be easier next time. After initially thinking there was a problem with graceful restarts on prefork, it just appears to takes about 6 seconds to complete a graceful restart cycle on my Linux 2.4.8 box. In the meantime, ps lists the children processes as defunct (which scared me off at first). But, after about 6 seconds, httpd starts serving again (incl. queued requests). Anyway, this delay looks defendable. I think this delay is acceptable, so I'm officially +1 on the 2.0.31 tarball for beta from: http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2_0_31-alpha.tar.gz Enjoy. -- justin