httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "pqf" <...@mailtech.cn>
Subject 回复: Re: Re: mod_fcgid concurrency bottleneck, issue#53693
Date Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:29:03 GMT
How about this:
1. procmgr_post_spawn_cmd() now return a status code from PM, so process handler now know
the spawn request is denyed or not.
2. if a new process is created, no sleep is needed.
3. if no process is created, sleep a while

2012-08-16



pqf



发件人:Lazy
发送时间:2012-08-16 16:47
主题:Re: Re: mod_fcgid concurrency bottleneck, issue#53693
收件人:"dev"<dev@httpd.apache.org>
抄送:

2012/8/16 pqf <pqf@mailtech.cn>: 
> Hi, Michal 
> My solution do "add availability to each class", which is the 
> procmgr_post_spawn_cmd() call in each loop do. 
> The sleep() call is intrudused for a stress test without warm up time, in 
> this case, mod_fcgid will create more processes than a slow start one(each 
> process handler can't apply a free slot on the very begining, so send a 
> request to process manager to create one, it's easy to reach the max # of 
> process limit while httpd startup, but the idle process will be killed 
> later), the sleep() call is a little like a "server side warm up delay". 
> But since someone said remove this sleep(), the server work fine without 
> bottleneck(Maybe he didn't notise the warm up issue?), so I thought remove 
> the sleep() is a good idea. But reduce the time of sleep() is fine to me 
> too. 

I was referring to the case where all processes are busy, without 
sleep(), handle_request() wil quickly send spawn requsts, whith will 
be denyed by process menager, with sleep() handle_request() will 
always wait quite a long time, 
occupying slots 

--  
Michal Grzedzicki 
Mime
View raw message