www-apache-bugdb mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>
Subject Re: general/3046: Apache letting child processes run too long
Date Wed, 23 Sep 1998 07:10:01 GMT
The following reply was made to PR general/3046; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com>
To: Miles O'Neal <meo@netads.com>
Cc: meo@rru.com, apbugs@hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: general/3046: Apache letting child processes run too long
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 23:58:40 -0700 (PDT)

 On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Miles O'Neal wrote:
 > Marc Slemko said...
 > |
 > |> Linux 1.2.8+, gcc 2.6.3, cmopiled with -O2 on everything (I think).
 > |
 > |Linux 1.2.8!?!?   Erm... that is ancient and could have countless bugs.
 > Nope.  That's where the "+" comes in.  It's patched a lot,
 > and runs beautifully.  It ran NCSA 1.[45].x for 3 years without
 > a hitch, and runs all sorts of complex software, including the
 > GIMP, some hefty CGI scripts, studly versions of bind and sendmail,
 > and Netscape Navigator.  It wa sone of the first CDDB servers, and
 > is still going strong.  I really think it's capable of basic
 > counting! 8^)
 That's all very nice, but just because it runs other things fine doesn't
 mean it will run everything fine.  There are many known bogons on ancient
 Linux systems and we simply do not have the time or resources to track
 down the same broken Linux things time after time when simply upgrading to
 a recent version would fix it.  This is _not_ a general problem, but is
 something specific to your system.  
 Your gcc version is also ancient, and could have any number of bugs,
 including bugs in optimization that you are triggering by using -O2.
 It obviously doensn't run fine since you are complaining it doesn't.  We
 have had to track down OS bugs over and over due to people using old
 versions of the OS, compiler, etc. and we just don't have the resources to
 do so when it doesn't impact the vast majority of users.
 > This is a production system, and not easily upgraded to a whole
 > new OS.  Maybe if Limnux ever gets sensible about upgrades...
 > |> >Description:
 > |> I was monitoring my web server, and noticed that Apache
 > |> seemed to be killing child processes off after about 1355
 > |> accesses.
 > |
 > |What makes you say that?  Give exact example output from the status page
 > |that you say shows this.
 > Here ya go.  Latest figures.
 > -----------------------------------------------------
 > Server 0 (6774): 0|475|12260 [Ready] u3.93 s21.56 cu4.33 cs16.9 343 59 (0 B|2.4 MB|88.9
 > 1cust85.tnt2.tampa.fl.gt.uu.net {GET /~meo/Places/fr/sofitel.html HTTP/1.0}
 Erm... this is not the output of the status page.  This is parsed by
 What does the status page itself say?
 Have you added any extra modules?  Have you modified the Apache code?
 Does this happen with a base Apache without any extra modules or
 > -----------------------------------------------------
 > Supposedly the access numbers are:
 >         this connection / this child / this slot 
 > Server 1 has a child with well over 10,000 accesses (the current
 > max).  I got my "kill the child" number by subtracting Server 0's
 > "this child" number from its "this slot" number - that gave me
 > the same number before that I observed as the "kill the child"
 > number.
 I'm not sure what you are talking about with "kill the child" number.

View raw message