httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Boyle Owen" <Owen.Bo...@swx.com>
Subject RE: [users@httpd] Return of bug 14219 in version 2.2.8? (too many SSL VHs causes fopen to fail) - UNDERSTOOD (?)
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:52:15 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Covener [mailto:covener@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 3:35 PM
> To: users@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [users@httpd] Return of bug 14219 in version 
> 2.2.8? (too many SSL VHs causes fopen to fail)
> 
> 
> Sun has some relatively recent changes in this area:
> 
> http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/stdio_256.html

I implemented the extendedFILE facility, as recommended in the article,
and the server started without the fopen error :-) 

Once I got a working instance of 2.2.8, I was able to peek inside and
discovered that, for an identical config file, 2.2.6 requires 195 file
handles, whereas 2.2.8 needs 328. So that was why 2.2.8 was tripping the
fopen limitation.

As an aside, our apache listens on 88 ports and has 102 piped log files
to write to. Add on STDIN/OUT/ERR and the Pid and Lock files and that's
how we get to 195. Comparing the two versions, we see the only
difference is in the number of pipes  - 102 in 2.2.6 and 235 in 2.2.8.
So something is doubling up the number of pipes (and then some...) 

I then trawled the code to see what has changed and found that there is
a recent addition to server/log.c
(http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.8/server/log.c?view=d
iff&r1=602466&r2=602467) that seems to redirect SDTOUT and STDERR to the
access and error logs. Would this have the effect of doubling the number
of pipes?

I am now faced with two ways forward;

1) Start using the extendedFILE facility. Probably a good idea since the
255 limit is an accident waiting to happen - we are already at 80%
capacity, even with 2.2.6 and so a few more sites could push us over
anyway. However, there are two caveats in the article; namely that
apache should not directly dereference the _file member of the FILE
structure or use the fileno() macro. I grep'd the code for '_file' and
'fileno()' and it seems clean so we should be OK...

2) Be a nuisance and question *why* apache needs to duplicate the pipes
like this. Can we be the only users that this is causing problems for?

Incidentally, I will be at apachecon in Amsterdam next week so if anyone
wants to discuss this, look me up - beer's on me :-)

Rgds,
Owen Boyle
Disclaimer: Any disclaimer attached to this message may be ignored. 
> 
> -- 
> Eric Covener
> covener@gmail.com
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP 
> Server Project.
> See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
>    "   from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
>
 
 
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary
or legally privileged information. If you receive this message in error, please notify the
sender urgently and then immediately delete the message and any copies of it from your system.
Please also immediately destroy any hardcopies of the message. The sender's company reserves
the right to monitor all e-mail communications through their networks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
   "   from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org


Mime
View raw message