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 7C4A7200C0F for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:32:04 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 7AC79160B57; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 12:32:04 +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 CA015160B54 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:32:01 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 90008 invoked by uid 500); 2 Feb 2017 12:32:00 -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 89998 invoked by uid 99); 2 Feb 2017 12:31:59 -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; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 12:31:59 +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 99C4FC11AD for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 12:31:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.499 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS=0.8, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.999] 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 nRp4bFrERWf2 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 12:31:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.acc.umu.se (mail.acc.umu.se [130.239.18.156]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 6BE955F30B for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 12:31:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by amavisd-new (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1571FDC8 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:31:27 +0100 (MET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at acc.umu.se Received: by mail.acc.umu.se (Postfix, from userid 12143) id B78C3DC6; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:31:25 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.acc.umu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B699ADC5 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:31:25 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:31:25 +0100 (MET) From: Niklas Edmundsson To: httpd-dev Subject: httpd 2.4.25, mpm_event, ssl: Status of async write completion? Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (GSO 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII archived-at: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 12:32:04 -0000 Hi all! As we're seeing more and more https on ftp.acc.umu.se I've noticed that the number of threads listed as state W in server-status has skyrocketed. From 2-4 threads busy using http we're talking 70-100 threads for the same bandwidth when the machine is pushing a mighty 2.7% average CPU load. This is on a large-file workload, serving plain files. I anticipated a few more threads due to ssl, but for slow downloaders I would expect connections doing async write and mostly waiting for the bits to dribble through the Internet Tubes inbetween the occational wakeup to do ssl&send... Are we not doing async write completion at all on https/ssl and falling back to the old worker behaviour of one thread per connection? /Nikke -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}.umu.se | nikke@acc.umu.se --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At last I'm organized", he sighed, and died. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=