Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> > Yes... that's the good part. =-)
>
> Hang on, I have to partially retract that. It worked fine for the first
> few gracefuls, but after the fourth one (the last two were in very quick
> succession... the third might not have had a chance to finish before I did
> the fourth), I got this:
>
> _________....__.._..__._._.___.._..._____.__G.__._..............
> ................................................................
> .G..............................................................
> G...............................................................
> ____________W_____________________________________..............
> ................................................................
> ................................................................
> ................................................................
>
> And at that point it stopped serving up more than a request or two at a
> time.
hmmm, wierd. I don't know why the process with the "W" won't kick off
any more threads.
Could you do me a huge favor? attach to the parent with gdb, set a
breakpoint in perform_idle_server_maintenance, and see what you have for
idle_thread_count at this line:
if (idle_thread_count > max_spare_threads) {
around line # 1034?
Thanks,
Greg
