The following reply was made to PR os-unixware/1499; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Marc Slemko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Apache bugs database <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Subject: Re: os-unixware/1499: Server ceases answering requests, remains running silently despite SIGUSR1 or SIGHUP. (fwd) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:49:10 -0700 (MST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:25:43 -0800 From: David Alan Pisoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: os-unixware/1499: Server ceases answering requests, remains running silently despite SIGUSR1 or SIGHUP. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >Synopsis: Server ceases answering requests, remains running silently= despite SIGUSR1 or SIGHUP. > >State-Changed-From-To: open-analyzed >State-Changed-By: marc >State-Changed-When: Wed Dec 3 14:55:36 PST 1997 >State-Changed-Why: >Do you have all the latest SCO networking patches applied? >Traditionally, SCO stuff has often had broken networking. > No, I just checked on that. I found a recently posted omnibus network= patch, but was unable to apply it because of a glitch (it wasn't= recognizing my OS version.) I've contacted SCO about the problem, they= should respond within the milennium. >If you can, give it a try using gcc for a compiler. This has sometimes >resolved such problems. > I have had problems with the gcc distributed at the SCO FTP site, and= haven't had the time (or wherewithal) to go through the lenghty source= compiliation process required for a good gcc build. >What happens when it doesn't answer requests? Are connectiosn refused? >Do you connect and just have nothing answer? =20 The latter occurs. Nice happy TCP 80's appear in the netstat, and the= client will report "Host Contacted, waiting for reply", but just silence. =46YI - I attempted to access the web server (when in this state) from the= same machine (I used telnet), then looked at netstat. The client process= was in "FIN_WAIT_2", while the server process was in "ESTABLISHED" (I= believe. I don't remember exactly. I just remember think it very strange." Ahh, just tried it again, but with a different result (though I made a= configuration change, explained below.) =20 >What is running in the way of processes when this happens? I imagine around 15 or so, which I think is what I have startservers set at. >Anything in the error log? Nope. >If SCO has something like ktrace/strace/ptrace/truss/etc. >to trace system calls, see what the child processes are doing. >Try using a debugger on the child processes after recompiling >with -g in EXTRA_CFLAGS to see where they child processes >are when it hangs. Before I dive into that, I wanna try the network patches. Okay, since my last contact, I changed the configuration to disable all the= "Listen" directives and their cooresponding Vhosts. I had hoped this would= be a temporary fix. No such luck, though the behaviour seems more consista= nt. Now the netstat table is filling up with mostly 'CLOSE_WAIT's and to a= lesser degree 'ESTABLISHED's, with a small handful of 'FIN_WAIT_1's. The= server is now actually refusing connections, as opposed to opening them and= then ignoring them. This looks more and more like a kernel networking= problem, but I will get back to you after I get the damn patch installed. = This doesn't cause a general denial of service -- only the web server= hangs, but I can telnet in to HUP it. Oh, and I forgot to mention, in it's= present state (after changing the configuration) it now recovers with a HUP= (where previously it quietly logged the HUP but still did not change its= abberant behaviour.) In short, I think that there is a kernel networking problem causing my aches= now, but I'm not sure if the patch will fix the problem with multiple= "Listen"s (which was supposedly fixed by USE_FCNTL_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT.) =20 I will get back to you with what I discover. Thanks for your time, David Pisoni, System Administrator CyberNation, LLC -- Web Design for the Next Milennium [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.cnation.com/ 310/656-3450 - 310/656-3453 (fax) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIc8Aj8po64ro8iIEQJ/fgCgwcjcKxNmhgufpCxNPuijcz5qRz4AniTl IfnqLq5WuYNtKni8TU7+fghw =OcMT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
