-1 for beta
Was able to build and run it on HP-UX on PA-RISC -- with problems.
It still exhibits the same problem as was evident in 2.0.19 and later
releases, there is only 1 process up and running, (apart from the cgid and
the watchdog process). The configuration I used were as follows:
StartServers 6
MinSpareThreads 5
MaxSpareThreads 50
ThreadsPerChild 25
MaxRequestsPerChild 0
This behaviour on a running system would be as follows. At peak load, say a
webserver is serving 130 simultaneous request => I have 6 worker processes
running, a total of 150 threads. At some point later, the load (suddenly)
falls down to say, 90 requests => 60 spare threads. The current logic would
cause the p_i_s_m() to send a pod, to kill one process. Since all the
processes are busy serving requests, the process which recd the pod will not
die immediately. Hence, p_i_s_m() will continue sending pods. Eventually
all the processes will die (and almost all of them simultaneously). And
finally, there will be 0 processes running.
Since the MinSpareThreads is 5, a new process will be spawned to meet that
requirement. And depending on the load, many other new processes will be
spawned to manage it. So a web-site with variable load, will always see the
process creation and destruction to the extremes - whereas the ideal
behaviour would have been for the webserver to kill exactly 1 process when
the MaxSpareThreads is exceeded.
This is a bug - a bad implementation of the lo-watermark and hi-watermark
logic, and makes Apache web-server 2.0.22 not enterprise quality. Justin's
patch of two mutexes did fix the problem, but I do not see it being included
even now.
Feel free to correct me if my understanding is fallible, but I'd hate to see
this issue being side-tracked and a release being made nevertheless.
M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 11:28 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: tarballs are up
>
>
> Looks good on HPUX/Itanium (IPF)
>
> -Madhu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 10:47 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: tarballs are up
>
>
> Before, and when you announce the beta, try to warn users
> about the platform
> specific breakages (win 9x/me still don't work, don't know
> what Unix gotchas
>
> exist beyond the solaris 7 problem.)
>
> If we spell out the problems, nobody will be too disappointed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cliff Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 12:30 PM
> Subject: Re: tarballs are up
>
>
> > On 30 Jul 2001, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >
> > > > I just posted the 2.0.22 tarballs at
> dev.apache.org/dist. Check 'em
> out.
> > >
> > > +1 for beta
> >
> > Cooooollll... that's enough +1's for beta (OtherBill, Jeff,
> myself, and
> > Justin). That would seem to cover at least Win32 and a few
> flavors of
> > Unix (at least Linux and Solaris). I'll wait a little
> while longer for
> > confirmation from a few other platforms, and then go with it. =-)
> >
> > Brian, David, how are OS/2 and BeOS looking?
> >
> > --Cliff
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > Cliff Woolley
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Charlottesville, VA
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
