Mailing-List: contact test-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org
Message-ID: <A5374D237E78D41195810090279CC91A08EC7891@xcup04.cup.hp.com>
From: "MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)"
 <madhusudan_mathihalli@hp.com>
To: "'test-dev@httpd.apache.org'" <test-dev@httpd.apache.org>
Subject: RE: SPEC / mod_specweb99.c
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:40:51 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Oh Cool (and thanks for the inputs). Somebody here was suggesting that we
should get the module approved by the SPEC - so that it'll be more useful
:).. 

-Madhu

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Greg Ames [mailto:gregames@apache.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:04 PM
>To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org
>Subject: Re: SPEC / mod_specweb99.c
>
>
>MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 	Does anybody know if the mod_specweb99.c been 'blessed' 
>by the SPEC
>> committee ?..I mean, have they acknowledged that the module 
>acts in a SPEC
>> compliant manner?
>
>No, they have not blessed it.
>
>> I had a doubt regarding executing CGI scripts in SPECweb99 - 
>somebody here
>> told me that the SPEC mandates the web server to fork a 
>child process to
>> execute a CGI script - is that so ?.
>
>Yes, that is so.  You need to configure a SPEC CGI independently from 
>mod_specweb99.  Fortunately this is only a tiny fraction of 
>the workload.
>
>In spite of the low frequency of CGI requests, I've seen 
>multiple zombie CGI 
>processes hanging around quite often.   Bill S. had a fix for 
>apr/unix/pools.c::free_proc_chain not too long ago that might 
>help with the 
>zombies.  Switching to a compiled CGI as Dave suggested 
>wouldn't hurt either.
>
>Greg
>