Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 99743 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2009 19:55:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Jan 2009 19:55:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 16185 invoked by uid 500); 12 Jan 2009 19:55:42 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 16116 invoked by uid 500); 12 Jan 2009 19:55:42 -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: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 16107 invoked by uid 99); 12 Jan 2009 19:55:42 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:55:42 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of trawick@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.66 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.217.66] (HELO mail-gx0-f66.google.com) (209.85.217.66) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:55:34 +0000 Received: by gxk18 with SMTP id 18so16139658gxk.8 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:55:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.105.6 with SMTP id d6mr11405370agc.24.1231790113273; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:55:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <0016361643a923b7ac04604e7c62@google.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:55:13 +0000 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Graceful restart not so graceful? From: trawick@gmail.com To: dev@httpd.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016361643a923b79304604e7c5e X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0016361643a923b79304604e7c5e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Jan 12, 2009 8:49am, trawick@gmail.com wrote: > wrt backporting: > I think that modern Linux and modern Solaris, perhaps the only platforms tested so far, both work for the same reason under the covers. Has anyone tested with regular poll()? If not, I can try to test another platform or at least dumb down APR to bypass epoll/event queue/etc. I tested prefork on OpenSolaris with ac_cv_func_port_create=no (ie, use poll()) and it worked with/without the patch. I tested on Leopard (kevent) and it appeared to work with/without the patch, but I'm not very confident that I was able to reproduce the right timing window. I've proposed for backport to 2.2.x. --0016361643a923b79304604e7c5e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Jan 12, 2009 8:49am, trawick@gmail.com wrote:
> w.r.t. backporti= ng:
> I think that modern Linux and modern Solaris, perhaps the onl= y platforms tested so far, both work for the same reason under the covers. = Has anyone tested with regular poll()? If not, I can try to test another = platform or at least dumb down APR to bypass epoll/event queue/etc.
I tested prefork on OpenSolaris with ac_cv_func_port_create=3Dno (i.e.,= use poll()) and it worked with/without the patch.
I tested on Leopard= (kevent) and it appeared to work with/without the patch, but I'm not v= ery confident that I was able to reproduce the right timing window.
I've proposed for backport to 2.2.x. --0016361643a923b79304604e7c5e--