On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Stefan Fritsch wrote:

On Thursday 10 January 2013, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
To reiterate back to the event mpm / mod_status integration, are
there any work in progress on implementing a more verbose status
display for the event mpm? I'm thinking of something that can show
all requests currently being processed like we have today for
prefork/worker. The current "thread status" thingie is probably
interesting too, but more from a developer/server diag point of
view.

<snip>

I am not aware of anyone working on this.

OK.

I agree that mod_socache may be a bit heavy-weight for this, but one
would need to test that.

My guess is that it's the one-big-lock requirement that bogs this down for high request/s rates, but for us it might be good enough.

There is also mod_slotmem_shm, but AFAICS
that requires to know the size in advance. So one would have to
allocate AsyncRequestWorkerFactor times (max number of threads) slots
to have one slot per connection.

I'll investigate a bit when time allows. Part of the problem is to find something useful to use as an identifier/index, process/thread is obviously not enough.

This would still not give the full picture, because with pipelining,
there can be several (5 or 6, I think) requests active on one
connection: zero or one being processed by a worker and the rest doing
write completion. I am not sure how much effort one should put into
displaying that correctly in mod_status, though.

Given that all file delivery will be done by write completion I think we'll want this to be rather accurate, at least for the connections doing write completion (think a server being overloaded serving DVD images, it gets easier to diagnose if you can easily figure out the culprit).

/Nikke
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}.umu.se      |     [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If it's useless, it will have to be documented.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Reply via email to