Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 20844 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2004 22:53:57 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Sep 2004 22:53:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 12421 invoked by uid 500); 19 Sep 2004 22:53:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 12339 invoked by uid 500); 19 Sep 2004 22:53:52 -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 12326 invoked by uid 99); 19 Sep 2004 22:53:52 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TITLE_EMPTY X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [12.11.148.32] (HELO exrelay.ptc.com) (12.11.148.32) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:53:52 -0700 Received: from hq-exfe3.ptcnet.ptc.com (132.253.201.80) by exrelay.ptc.com with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2004 18:53:58 -0400 X-Ironport-AV: i="3.84,166,1091419200"; d="scan'217,208"; a="669752:sNHT19048912" Received: from [132.253.40.106] ([132.253.40.106]) by HQ-EXFE3.ptcnet.ptc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:53:50 -0400 Message-ID: <414E0DFE.1090301@ptc.com> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:53:50 -0500 From: Jess Holle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jess Holle CC: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Apache 2.0.51 util_ldap References: <20040912142128.20755.qmail@nagoya.betaversion.org> <414AEC81.7030702@ptc.com> <414B186C.8060701@ptc.com> <414B1AA4.5020700@ptc.com> <414C4CDA.3010109@ptc.com> <414C59B8.6050003@sharp.fm> <414C643C.7010309@ptc.com> <414CA274.5060708@ptc.com> <414CF9EA.6040503@ptc.com> <414D6FE2.4080609@sharp.fm> <414D9A12.2090100@ptc.com> <414D9E4C.1070708@sharp.fm> <414D9F44.9060100@ptc.com> <414DBE04.50503@ptc.com> <414DCA51.1000307@sharp.fm> <414DD1E8.3040206@ptc.com> <414DD8AB.5080405@ptc.com> <414DFD78.2010102@ptc.com> <414E05C6.5090708@ptc.com> <414E0B9F.6090808@ptc.com> In-Reply-To: <414E0B9F.6090808@ptc.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070404020100060909030006" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2004 22:53:50.0996 (UTC) FILETIME=[87E04D40:01C49E9B] X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070404020100060909030006 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jess Holle wrote: > Jess Holle wrote: > >> Here's one final patch to fix the global mutex crash when the global >> mutex is never allocated due to disabled/empty caches. >> >> I would really like some clarity as to whether: >> >> 1. We should just stick with the single-process read/write lock >> for single-worker MPMs. It would really seem so. >> 2. Whether we should really avoid using shared memory for the LDAP >> cache for single-worker MPMs. What's it really buy us in this >> case? >> > Related stupid questions: > > 1. Does setting LDAPSharedCacheSize to 0 disable shared memory but > not the cache? [The docs say so.] > P.S. The doc says so, but the ldap-status handler provides no information in this case as if the cache were not active. -- Jess Holle --------------070404020100060909030006 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jess Holle wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
Here's one final patch to fix the global mutex crash when the global mutex is never allocated due to disabled/empty caches.

I would really like some clarity as to whether:
  1. We should just stick with the single-process read/write lock for single-worker MPMs.  It would really seem so.
  2. Whether we should really avoid using shared memory for the LDAP cache for single-worker MPMs.  What's it really buy us in this case?
Related stupid questions:
  1. Does setting LDAPSharedCacheSize to 0 disable shared memory but not the cache?  [The docs say so.]
P.S.  The doc says so, but the ldap-status handler provides no information in this case as if the cache were not active.

--
Jess Holle

--------------070404020100060909030006--