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=27134>.
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=27134

mod_ldap/util_ldap blindly rebind connection in checkuserid





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2004-05-12 17:54 -------
I'm adding this note to document some further tests on patch 11296.

E-mail correspondence with Denis Gervalle, suggested I should test 
the effects of the number of processes. (All my tests are on 
Linux running the prefork model.)

I did the tests above with the default settings of

StartServers         5
MinSpareServers      5
MaxSpareServers     10
MaxClients         150
MaxRequestsPerChild  0

For comparison, I set up a low process number test with:

StartServers         1
MinSpareServers      1
MaxSpareServers     1
MaxClients         150
MaxRequestsPerChild  0

and high process number test with:

StartServers         10
MinSpareServers      10
MaxSpareServers     20
MaxClients         150
MaxRequestsPerChild  0

I ran the serial and random test data against these two new
configurations under 2.0.49 with patch 11296

All the test results were correct; they differed in socket usage.

The "low process" config left 1 socket open to the LDAP server at the
end of both data sets.

The "high process" config left 15 sockets open at the end of the serial
data set and 13 sockets open at the end of the random data set.

Combined with the test above, this seems to indicate that 11296 is
holding sockets between requests on the order of one per process. This
rate of usage looks fairly stable over time. It goes up and down in
tests, but there's no long-term upward trend as there had been with
10470.

In all my tests I'm getting a log message 

[debug] util_ldap.c(1139): LDAP cache: Unable to init 
Shared Cache: no file

which I guess indicates there's no shared state among processes. 
I've tried to explicitly specify a cache file writable by the 
web server, but it does not seem to have any effect.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to