On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Gregory Boyce <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Folks, > > Last week I filed this bug report on mod_proxy and I was hoping to get a > > confirmation from you if you agree that this is in fact a bug or if there > > may be something that I'm missing. > > Essentially what I discovered is that when Apache/mod_proxy is acting as > a > > reverse proxy in front of a website, and the remote webserver sends a FIN > in > > order to close the connection, Apache does not send the corresponding FIN > > packet to fully close the connection until the next time that child > process > > is used. > > > The manual could certainly do a better job of describing how the > connection pool is used, with respect to frontend connections (is this > a 2.0 thing only?), child processes, exactly when smax/ttl is checked, > etc. > > Surprising that you managed to burn through all your local ports but > still not managed to trigger that backend connection closure being > noticed -- maybe would make sense with prefork if the pools were > per-process? > The server is acting as a reverse proxy in front of multiple websites. This particular one is very low volume while some of the other ones serve quite a bit more traffic. We are using prefork so the connection pools are definitely not shared across processes. -- Greg
