The question is getting whupped doing what? You can seldom define true
performance of an application, if they do not do what they are intended to
do. At this point, I think static service is the best check, versus anything
dymanmic what so ever.
--
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Ames [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 10:22 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] threaded.c and apr_thread_create() failures
>
>
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >
> > exit(APEXIT_CHILDFATAL) isn't too cool... the parent
> process bails out
> > without cleaning stuff up
>
> agreed, it sounds bad. Is there more cleanup we could do without
> getting into trouble? Do we need something in between exit() and
> clean_child_exit?
>
> > this patch retries apr_thread_create() after an interval;
> apache stays
> > healthy (though it doesn't free up system resources; it
> merely assumes
> > they will free up after a time)
>
> they may or may not free up
>
> > maybe we shouldn't retry the thread creation endlessly?
>
> > maybe we should sleep a different interval?
>
> why don't we do an exponential backoff, starting at about a second and
> ending at about a minute? If it doesn't work after a minute, I don't
> think there's any point in further retries.
>
> Greg
>
