--On Tuesday, March 2, 2004 11:47 AM -0400 "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Note that *BSD is looking at a 4.10 RSN, and I'm trying to fight for
trying to get this fixed, if its possible, which is why I'm trying to come
up with some data to fight with ...

Is there anywhere that there is a summary of this "gnarly stuff"?
Something you could point me at, that I can use/question?

You'd have to look at the archives for [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would have been the one posting it along with David Reid and Aaron Bannert. We first looked at it in late 2001 and early 2002. This was coupled with issues with sendfile in libc_r that we got Alfred P. to fix.


I'd look inside libc_r and see if someone committed some fixes to the scheduling and condition variable implementations recently. If so, then yah, someone might have fixed this. (Don't have the time to check the CVS history myself.)

I also know that I checked this a few months ago on minotaur (ASF's CVS server), which is running 4.9-STABLE (from Nov 29 2003). So, if it got fixed, it's probably after that as it was still broken then.

which is what I would expect ...

now, running http_load with a rate of 2 (simple), I'm still left with
those three processes ...

Okay.


Great, so either it did get fixed at some point, and nobody has
acknowledge it, or I'm really doing something wrong trying to trigger it
:( that last one, if I read the notes on http_load, would have hit it 500
times in 10 seconds, which should have simulated a good load, I would have
thought?

The only sure-fire reproduction case we had was to use two copies of telnet against the server. What happens if you don't use http_load at all?


Yes, it's possible it's been fixed in 4.x; we know it's fixed in 5.2+ with libkse and libthr. But, the libc_r in 5.2 is still broken. -- justin

Reply via email to