Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04473200B9C for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:02:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 02ECA160AE1; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:02:15 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 41DE9160AD1 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:02:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 31220 invoked by uid 500); 10 Oct 2016 20:02:13 -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 31210 invoked by uid 99); 10 Oct 2016 20:02:13 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:02:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id D1E28C31E3 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:02:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G2lsik8wzLqD for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:02:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cloud1-vm154.de-nserver.de (cloud1-vm154.de-nserver.de [178.250.10.56]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 3DF555FD0A for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:02:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 12942 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2016 22:01:59 +0200 X-Fcrdns: No Received: from phoffice.de-nserver.de (HELO [10.242.2.3]) (185.39.223.5) (smtp-auth username hostmaster@profihost.com, mechanism plain) by cloud1-vm154.de-nserver.de (qpsmtpd/0.92) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:01:59 +0200 Subject: Re: Frequent wake-ups for mpm_event To: dev@httpd.apache.org References: <9413e65e-b037-c07d-267e-dcd7011386ff@profihost.ag> <69B089B3-8285-485B-BEF2-9298D339BEA4@profihost.ag> <9af18921-417f-7a77-c206-edbfcff45f66@profihost.ag> From: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:01:54 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-User-Auth: Auth by hostmaster@profihost.com through 185.39.223.5 archived-at: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:02:15 -0000 Hi Luca, Am 10.10.2016 um 16:48 schrieb Luca Toscano: > Hi Stefan, > > 2016-10-07 10:11 GMT+02:00 Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG > >: > > Am 05.10.2016 um 12:50 schrieb Luca Toscano: > > Hi Stefan, > > > > 2016-09-26 14:26 GMT+02:00 Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG > > > >>: > > > > currently no deadlocks since V5 also no old httpd processes anymore. > > > > > > if you still have patience and time, I'd like to ask you a question: > > have you noticed any performance improvement after applying the patch? > > For example (Yann correct me if I am wrong) I'd expect some reduction in > > system CPU utilization since the number of wake ups / context switches > > has been reduced dramatically. Moreover, it would be great to know some > > info about the status of the worker threads over time from the > > scoreboard, since it would be great not to introduce weird regressions > > with this patch :) > > Dear Luca, > > sure what can i exactly provide? > > > I would be interested in scoreboard related metrics over time, namely if > the number of busy/idle/graceful/etc.. worker statuses change from a > "regular" 2.4.23 httpd. I don't expect a bit difference, but I'd really > like to make sure that no big regression is introduced (like let's say, > an increase over time of worker threads stuck in a certain status like G > or more busy workers at request peak load time). > > Related to the above: have you noticed any improvement in > latency/throughput metrics? For example, an improvement in total amount > of requests handled in the same period of time o more generally in the > responsiveness of the websites served? It seems i cannot provide any of the requested data ;-( This is an example output of a server running with the patch: Current Time: Monday, 10-Oct-2016 21:57:49 CEST Restart Time: Wednesday, 05-Oct-2016 06:30:31 CEST Parent Server Config. Generation: 12 Parent Server MPM Generation: 11 Server uptime: 5 days 15 hours 27 minutes 17 seconds Server load: 4.01 4.22 4.10 Total accesses: 6485371 - Total Traffic: 139.0 GB CPU Usage: u2686.2 s1651.82 cu0 cs0 - .89% CPU load 13.3 requests/sec - 298.9 kB/second - 22.5 kB/request 10 requests currently being processed, 115 idle workers Slot PID Stopping Connections Threads Async connections total accepting busy idle writing keep-alive closing 0 6044 no 8 yes 2 23 0 1 4 1 15254 no 3 yes 2 23 0 0 2 2 15189 no 5 yes 3 22 0 0 2 3 15081 no 5 yes 0 25 0 0 4 4 15082 no 1 yes 3 22 0 0 0 Sum 5 0 22 10 115 0 1 12 L__W__________________________W__________________W_W__W_________ __W_____________________________________W______________L_W___... ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................ Stefan