www-apache-bugdb mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Illuminatus Primus <verm...@gate.net>
Subject Re: general/885: After a period of time (not found to coincide with server rehashes or any specific access), the server will read requests, but return no data (and close the connection). It will still respond to a server-status request though.
Date Fri, 14 Nov 1997 07:10:01 GMT
The following reply was made to PR general/885; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Illuminatus Primus <vermont@gate.net>
To: Dean Gaudet <dgaudet@arctic.org>
Cc: apbugs@apache.org
Subject: Re: general/885: After a period of time (not found to coincide with server rehashes
or any specific access), the server will read requests, but return no data (and close the
connection).  It will still respond to a server-status request though.
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 02:06:39 -0500 (EST)

 On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:
 
 > Oh I think you misunderstand how ap_slack works ... it never returns -1
 > ... it returns the original fd when it can't remap it above the slack
 > line.... so what you were seeing was correct.  At least I can't reproduce
 > any problem under linux 2.0.30 or 2.1.29. 
 > 
 > (Notwithstanding the interesting code in the kernel ... but I know what
 > it's up to at least.) 
 > 
 > Dean
 
 Yes, I realize that ap_slack tries to return the original fd if a new one
 cannot be allocated, but unforunately if there are lots of fds open and
 fcntl fails to remap the fd on a 2.0.29 kernel, it will return a closed fd
 :).. maybe i misworded the sentence about open() returning -1 once in a
 while..
 
 But in any case: what's going on with the code in the kernel?  It's
 possible that the fcntl fd remapping code has never changed; in the tests
 I never got to see if the behavior was different since the fds seem to run
 out while doing open() in 2.1.53 even if there would appear to be some
 spares below the slack line. Maybe it's a bug, or maybe there is a new
 strange way of limiting per-process fds.. 
 
 Well, good luck :)
 
 -vermont@gate.net
 

Mime
View raw message