DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32915] - (snapshot 2.0.0.2002) Stopping apache causes error on stop
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32915. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32915 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-07 19:10 --- The most recent package turned out to be about 50k too small to have been created correctly. Please test this new package; http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_aspdotnet-2.0.0.2002-snapshot-rev124420.msi -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32998] New: - Error in communication between Apache and Tomcat through AJP
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32998. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32998 Summary: Error in communication between Apache and Tomcat through AJP Product: Apache mod_aspdotnet Version: 2.0.0 Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows 2000 Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Apache.Web AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] We are using Apache version 2.0.46 with Tomcat version 4.1.29. The name of web server is TAAPPST1.xpn.xerox.com and the ajp connector is configured on port 8009. Apache is running on port 80 and Tomcat is running on port 8080. Apache hangs on irregular intervals and it needs to be restarted. Here are the errors visible in Apache error logs:- [Thu Dec 16 13:14:38 2004] [error] workerEnv.processCallbacks() Error reading reply [Thu Dec 16 13:14:38 2004] [error] ajp13.service() ajpGetReply recoverable error 12 [Thu Dec 16 13:14:38 2004] [error] Error ajp_process_callback - write failed [Thu Dec 16 13:14:38 2004] [error] ajp13.service() ajpGetReply recoverable error 3 [Thu Dec 16 13:14:38 2004] [error] Error ajp_process_callback - write failed [Thu Dec 16 13:14:38 2004] [error] ajp13.service() ajpGetReply recoverable error 3 [Thu Dec 16 13:14:38 2004] [error] ajp13.service() Error forwarding ajp13:taappst1.xpn.xerox.com:8009 1 0 [Thu Dec 16 13:14:38 2004] [error] mod_jk.handler() Error connecting to tomcat 3 [Thu Dec 16 13:14:38 2004] [error] Error ajp_process_callback - write failed [Thu Dec 16 13:14:38 2004] [error] ajp13.service() ajpGetReply recoverable error 3 [Thu Dec 16 13:14:38 2004] [error] Error ajp_process_callback - write failed [Thu Dec 16 13:14:38 2004] [error] ajp13.service() ajpGetReply recoverable error 3 [Thu Dec 16 13:14:38 2004] [error] ajp13.service() Error forwarding ajp13:taappst1.xpn.xerox.com:8009 1 0 [Thu Dec 16 13:14:38 2004] [error] mod_jk.handler() Error connecting to tomcat 3 [Thu Dec 16 13:15:36 2004] [error] channelSocket.receive(): Error receiving message body -1 0 [Thu Dec 16 13:15:36 2004] [error] workerEnv.processCallbacks() Error reading reply [Thu Dec 16 13:15:36 2004] [error] ajp13.service() ajpGetReply recoverable error 12 [Thu Dec 16 13:15:37 2004] [error] channelSocket.receive(): Error receiving message body -1 0 [Thu Dec 16 13:15:37 2004] [error] workerEnv.processCallbacks() Error reading reply [Thu Dec 16 13:15:37 2004] [error] ajp13.service() ajpGetReply recoverable error 12 [Thu Dec 16 13:15:37 2004] [error] Error ajp_process_callback - write failed [Thu Dec 16 13:15:37 2004] [error] ajp13.service() ajpGetReply recoverable error 3 [Thu Dec 16 13:15:37 2004] [error] Error ajp_process_callback - write failed [Thu Dec 16 13:15:37 2004] [error] ajp13.service() ajpGetReply recoverable error 3 [Thu Dec 16 13:15:37 2004] [error] ajp13.service() Error forwarding ajp13:taappst1.xpn.xerox.com:8009 1 0 [Thu Dec 16 13:15:37 2004] [error] mod_jk.handler() Error connecting to tomcat 3 [Thu Dec 16 13:15:37 2004] [error] Error ajp_process_callback - write failed [Thu Dec 16 13:15:37 2004] [error] ajp13.service() ajpGetReply recoverable error 3 [Thu Dec 16 13:15:37 2004] [error] Error ajp_process_callback - write failed [Thu Dec 16 13:15:37 2004] [error] ajp13.service() ajpGetReply recoverable error 3 [Thu Dec 16 13:15:37 2004] [error] ajp13.service() Error forwarding ajp13:taappst1.xpn.xerox.com:8009 1 0 [Thu Dec 16 13:15:37 2004] [error] mod_jk.handler() Error connecting to tomcat 3 [Thu Dec 16 13:21:06 2004] [error] ajp13.service() Error sending initial post - 1 0 0 -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32998] - Error in communication between Apache and Tomcat through AJP
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32998. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|tomcat- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Component|Apache.Web |Connector:JK/AJP Product|Apache mod_aspdotnet|Tomcat 4 Version|2.0.0 |4.1.29 -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
Working on some load balancing methods
I'm currently working on code that extended the lb method within the 2.1/2.2 proxy from what is basically a weighted request count to also be a weighted traffic count (as measured by bytes transferred) and a weighted load count (as measured by response time). The former is further along and the methods will be selectable at runtime... This is definitely a scratch I'm itching, but before I spend too much (additional) time on it, I'd like some feedback on whether the concept is one we can all get behind. I am also toying with the idea of supporting a CPU load method when the origin servers are Apache via a custom response header...
RE: Working on some load balancing methods
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 8:52 PM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Working on some load balancing methods I'm currently working on code that extended the lb method within the 2.1/2.2 proxy from what is basically a weighted request count to also be a weighted traffic count (as measured by bytes transferred) and a weighted load count (as measured by response time). The former is further along and the methods will be selectable at runtime... This is definitely a scratch I'm itching, I'm sure you are not the only one with that itch. but before I spend too much (additional) time on it, I'd like some feedback on whether the concept is one we can all get behind. FWIW, I like it. I am also toying with the idea of supporting a CPU load method when the origin servers are Apache via a custom response header... +1! Sander
Re: Is there a limit to using with-module directive ???
On 19.10.2004, at 04:03, Bennett, Tony - CNF wrote: I have tried adding two different home-grown modules to be statically linked when attempting to configure httpd 2.0.52 on AIX 5.1. My configure command: ... It only builds the module specified in the last --with-module directive. Is this a limitation with that directive ??? If so, how do I add two modules that are to be statically linked? This should be working now with the current SVN trunk (2.1.x), see http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?root=Apache-SVNrev=124600view=rev Just use --with-module=module-type1:module-file1,module-type2:module-file2 to add two or more external modules - you can find a description at http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.1/programs/configure.html - would be nice to hear the results... Cheers, Erik smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Dumb APR_BUCKET_BUFF_SIZE question
Why is it hardcoded to be 8000? It would seem like you could easily be unlucky and just miss the cutoff and end up with a 6000 byte heap bucket followed by a 3000 byte transient bucket, for example, as a result of 3 3000 byte ap_rwrites. For that particular case it might be quite beneficial to increase APR_BUCKET_BUFF_SIZE to 9000 which would suggest that it might be something that should be configurable. -Rasmus
Re: Dumb APR_BUCKET_BUFF_SIZE question
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: Why is it hardcoded to be 8000? It would seem like you could easily be unlucky and just miss the cutoff and end up with a 6000 byte heap bucket followed by a 3000 byte transient bucket, for example, as a result of 3 3000 byte ap_rwrites. For that particular case it might be quite beneficial to increase APR_BUCKET_BUFF_SIZE to 9000 which would suggest that it might be something that should be configurable. In fact, it used to be 9000. Then we realized that that was causing cache/page alignment problems. So we changed it to be just a fuzz less than 8KB to allow it plus the bucket allocator structures to fit into one 8KB or two 4KB pages. --Cliff
Re: Dumb APR_BUCKET_BUFF_SIZE question
Cliff Woolley wrote: On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: Why is it hardcoded to be 8000? It would seem like you could easily be unlucky and just miss the cutoff and end up with a 6000 byte heap bucket followed by a 3000 byte transient bucket, for example, as a result of 3 3000 byte ap_rwrites. For that particular case it might be quite beneficial to increase APR_BUCKET_BUFF_SIZE to 9000 which would suggest that it might be something that should be configurable. In fact, it used to be 9000. Then we realized that that was causing cache/page alignment problems. So we changed it to be just a fuzz less than 8KB to allow it plus the bucket allocator structures to fit into one 8KB or two 4KB pages. I still think it would be worthwhile to make it configurable. Linux or FreeBSD5 on IA64 with 16k pages, for example, might show some decent gains by setting that to 15000. Or do a getpagesize() call on startup to determine it dynamically. -Rasmus
