Re: JK 1.2.7 Beta3 Page Fault
Jean-Jacques Clar wrote: It takes between few minutes and an hour to reproduce, this is the stack: I love those kind of errors that are so easy to reproduce :). The ajp_endpoint_t pointer passed in ajp_reset_endpoint is a valid address but the reuse field is NULL. The reuse filed is int, so it looks like some other thread corrupted the data. In RC1 the ajp_reset_endpoint is called when the endpoint is stored in the cache slot. In beta3 it was called always, and then closed if the free slot was not found. Setting up reuse to JK_FALSE seg fault the server. Since I inherited responsibility of mod_jk few weeks ago, Cool. The more the merrier :). Regards, Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JK 1.2.7 Beta3 Page Fault
Jean-Jacques Clar wrote: I did a clean co of jtc w/ JK_1_2_7_BETA_3 tag. I am building for NetWare with ap2.0.52. Running stress test on a 2 procs machine. Doing request to simple JSPs and servlets using WebBench with up to 250 virtual clients. It takes between few minutes and an hour to reproduce, this is the stack: Could you tell if Netware build is using any code from jk_mt.h (_MT_CODE)? If it doesn't use pthreads, than we'll need to think of something else to make the Netware build thread safe like other builds are. Regards, Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JK 1.2.7 Beta3 Page Fault
Greetings, I did a clean co of jtc w/ JK_1_2_7_BETA_3 tag. I am building for NetWare with ap2.0.52. Running stress test on a 2 procs machine. Doing request to simple JSPs and servlets using WebBench with up to 250 virtual clients. It takes between few minutes and an hour to reproduce, this is the stack: ajp_reset_endpoint + 4 ajp_close_endpoint + 36 ajp_get_endpoint + E3 ajp_worker_factory%12 + 119B jk_set_options + 649 The ajp_endpoint_t pointer passed in ajp_reset_endpoint is a valid address but the reuse field is NULL. Setting up reuse to JK_FALSE seg fault the server. Since I inherited responsibility of mod_jk few weeks ago, and had my first look at the code 2 days ago, help would probably be usefull to resolve this problem. Any explanation of why this will happen? Any more information that I could provide to help narrow down that problem? Next Monday, I will try to reproduce that problem with the newly tagged 1.2.8rc1. Thanks, Jean-Jacques
