On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 01:12:00AM +0100, Giel van Schijndel wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:00:42AM +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote: >> 2010/1/26 Graham Dumpleton <[email protected]>: >>> 2010/1/26 Giel van Schijndel <[email protected]>: >>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:03:44PM +0100, Giel van Schijndel wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:10:42PM +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote: >>>>>> Let me know how it goes. I'll review the code a bit more and perhaps >>>>>> also include my other changes to make it more robust. The potential >>>>>> problems in it may explain some of the other very rare problems on >>>>>> Linux platforms. >>>>> >>>>> Running it for 30 minutes now. No problems so far. Last time I had >>>>> timeout problems immediately, I'm guessing caused by a dead lock which >>>>> that patch fixes. >>>>> >>>>> Either way, I'll leave it running for now until problems arise (in which >>>>> case I'll gladly notify you again). >>>> >>>> Some time later, and now it seems that the daemon crashed. At least I >>>> think it must have, considering that it didn't leave anything in the >>>> logs, except for timeouts around when the daemon must have gone. No >>>> coredump either. >>> >>> I'll give you an updated patch shortly then which includes the other >>> changes I figured are required to make it more robust on platforms >>> where conditional wait can actually return even though condition not >>> satisfied. >> >> Revert that prior patch and try this one instead: > > No immediate regressions so far. I.e. it functions properly within a few > minutes after restarting Apache with it.
It seems that after the daemon times out due to inactivity it gets killed, but it never seems to be respawned when a request arrives after that timeout. -- With kind regards, Giel van Schijndel - Interlink <www.il.fontys.nl>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
