I get it on Apache 2.0.59 as well. :-(
I will thus be interested to see what others get, as appears to be an existing
mod_python issue.
BTW, this is with worker MPM.
Graham
Graham Dumpleton wrote ..
I am using Apache 2.2.2 and when using mod_python in a certain way, I am
seeing
significant
Okay, found the source of the memory leak. The problem goes right back
to 3.1.4 which also has the problem when tested.
The problem code is in python_handler() in 'src/mod_python.c'.
Specifically
the code does:
if (!hle) {
/* create a handler list object from dynamically
Memory leak when using handlers in multiple phases at same time.
Key: MODPYTHON-181
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-181
Project: mod_python
Issue Type: Bug
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-181?page=all ]
Work on MODPYTHON-181 started by Graham Dumpleton.
Memory leak when using handlers in multiple phases at same time.
Key: MODPYTHON-181
We decided to fix the memory leak in parse_qsl and move on to 3.2.10,
which has been tested and currently has +3 core votes. All we need now
is the official release. One of these days I'll sort out my GPG keys so
I can sign these things myself but in the mean time we'll need your
help, Grisha.
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Okay, found the source of the memory leak. The problem goes right back
to 3.1.4 which also has the problem when tested.
...
Now what do we do about 3.2.10? Given that this thing leaks really badly
when triggered shows that no one must be using multiple handler phases
Here is further confirmation that it leaks like crazy for:
mod_python 3.2.10, Linux Ubuntu 6.06, Apache 2.0.55 (mpm-worker), Python
2.4.3
Jim
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
I get it on Apache 2.0.59 as well. :-(
I will thus be interested to see what others get, as appears to be an existing
Max Bowsher wrote:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Okay, found the source of the memory leak. The problem goes right back
to 3.1.4 which also has the problem when tested.
...
Now what do we do about 3.2.10? Given that this thing leaks really badly
when triggered shows that no one must be using
Nicolas Lehuen wrote ..
Note that the problem with Apache 2.2 on Windows XP SP2 seems to have
disappeared, though I can't see how this is possible, unless Graham fixed
something :).
The problem was more probably due to an Apache 2.2 setup glitch.
Not necessarily a glitch. The whole problem
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-181?page=all ]
Graham Dumpleton resolved MODPYTHON-181.
Fix Version/s: 3.3
Resolution: Fixed
Memory leak when using handlers in multiple phases at same time.
Core +1 from me. I will take care of the signing, etc, some time tomorrow.
P.S. In order for you to be able to sign you need to meet in person
someone (or probably more than one person) from ASF. ApacheCon is the best
place, and members do not have to pay the conference fee (at least I think
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Randy Kobes wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Steve Hay wrote:
Yes, that works for me! I tried the individual test and the whole test
suite dozens of times over and didn't get a single failure. I'm not sure
how it makes any difference, though, or exactly what it does. I
Nevertheless, unless someone objects in the next
day or so, I'd like to commit this change, as I
think leaving temp files lying around is a worse
problem.
No objection here :)
--
Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Oh sry that i wasn't very clear on the unix sournce ^^
It's a bit out dated but this should help you:
http://www.blackdot.be/?inc=apache/unix2win/index.htm
you need to manual add apr,apr-utils... and convert the source
On 7/30/06, hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/30/06, Jorge Schrauwen
Thanks Chris .. researching.
This is what I was talking about by having too many versions of Visual Studio,
each with peculiar quirky requirement for /d VAR=Long String Value syntax.
Only a custom build step, I'm thinking, will save us from this rc hell.
hunter wrote:
I am getting an error
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I thought that this was about abstracting out scoreboard
so that other modules could have scoreboard-like
access without mucking around with the real scoreboard...
+1. The proxy could just use this mechanism. We need to separate the
two issues. I am all in favor of a
Brian Akins wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I thought that this was about abstracting out scoreboard
so that other modules could have scoreboard-like
access without mucking around with the real scoreboard...
+1. The proxy could just use this mechanism. We need to separate the
two
I'm trying to figure out which impl of the the
LB cluster set makes the most sense and would appreciate
the feedback.
Basically, I see 2 different methods:
1. Members in all cluster sets which have the same or
lower set numbers are checked
2. Only members is a specific set number
Will it be OK to do this?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.links.org/
There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit. - Robert Woodruff
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 10:08 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm trying to figure out which impl of the the
LB cluster set makes the most sense and would appreciate
the feedback.
snip
Comments?
Are you implementing load balancing/clustering in Apache HTTP Server ?
Why ?
--
--gh
Please add it to the STATUS file of 2.2.x for voting.
Regards
Rüdiger
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Ben Laurie
Gesendet: Montag, 31. Juli 2006 16:13
An: Apache List
Betreff: Backport PCKS#7 patch to 2.2?
Will it be OK to do this?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
In other words, lets assume members a, b and c are in
set 0 and d, e and f are in set 1 and g, h and i are in
set 2. We check a, b and c and they are not usable, so
we now start checking set 1. Should we re-check the
members in set 0
On Mon, July 31, 2006 4:29 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
Are you implementing load balancing/clustering in Apache HTTP Server ?
It was implemented quite a while ago.
Why ?
Because it's useful?
Regards,
Graham
--
On Jul 31, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF EITO wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
In other words, lets assume members a, b and c are in
set 0 and d, e and f are in set 1 and g, h and i are in
set 2. We check a, b and c and they are not usable, so
we now
On Jul 31, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Guy Hulbert wrote:
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 10:08 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm trying to figure out which impl of the the
LB cluster set makes the most sense and would appreciate
the feedback.
snip
Comments?
Are you implementing load balancing/clustering in
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 11:18 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Why ?
People want it.
Thought so :-(
--
--gh
Guy Hulbert wrote:
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 11:18 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Why ?
People want it.
Thought so :-(
Why :-( ??
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 16:54 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
Why ?
Because it's useful?
Nope.
Load balancing really belongs at the network layer.
IBM released free load-balancing software for linux and windows about
1997. My former employer's integration group (about 3 people) got a
fully
On Mon, July 31, 2006 5:32 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
People want it.
Thought so :-(
Why the :-(...?
httpd tries to deliver what people will find useful, and load balancing is
a very useful part of a multi tier webserver architecture.
Regards,
Graham
--
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 17:42 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
On Mon, July 31, 2006 5:32 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
People want it.
Thought so :-(
Why the :-(...?
httpd tries to deliver what people will find useful, and load balancing is
a very useful part of a multi tier webserver
On Mon, July 31, 2006 5:42 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
Nope.
Load balancing really belongs at the network layer.
I disagree. Load balancing should happen at the layer most capable of
making the most effective balancing decisions.
At the network layer, your metrics are pretty much volume of data
Graham Leggett wrote:
On Mon, July 31, 2006 5:32 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
People want it.
Thought so :-(
Why the :-(...?
httpd tries to deliver what people will find useful, and load balancing is
a very useful part of a multi tier webserver architecture.
Still not sure why
Guy Hulbert wrote:
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 16:54 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
Why ?
Because it's useful?
Nope.
Load balancing really belongs at the network layer.
IBM released free load-balancing software for linux and windows about
1997. My former employer's integration
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm trying to figure out which impl of the the
LB cluster set makes the most sense and would appreciate
the feedback.
Basically, I see 2 different methods:
1. Members in all cluster sets which have the same or
lower set numbers are checked
2. Only members is a
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 12:04 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Nope.
Load balancing really belongs at the network layer.
snip
But, I suppose, if people want it ...
People want to simplify things.
The simple solution is to buy a bigger piece of hardware or outsource
the problem to the
On Mon, July 31, 2006 6:16 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
At the network layer, your metrics are pretty much volume of data or
Nope.
Routers can look at anything in the packets which is not encrypted.
They can also measure server response (by packet stats) directly or via
SNMP. There are all
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 12:22:03PM -0400, Guy Hulbert wrote:
The simple solution is to buy a bigger piece of hardware or outsource
the problem to the relevent experts.
Trying to do meaningful load-balancing within an application will not be
simple. At the router it is simple. All the
On Mon, July 31, 2006 6:22 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
The real danger, I see, is that you try to become all things to all
people when there does not seem to be resources to solve problems which
are very specific to the core application.
Apache httpd is capable not only of switching things off,
Guy Hulbert wrote:
However, you may not be able to wait until the linux router project
picks this up (but it might be worth looking to see what is
available).
Most of the load-balancing we are discussing on this list is not for
directly customer facing applications. These are proxies
Graham.
I already accept that this seems to fait-accomplis. So I am just
arguing for entertainment purposes.
If the solution is a p2p one then it might be somewhat interesting.
Otherwise, it just seems (to me) to be re-inventing the wheel ...
potentially very badly.
Adding
I didn't read this very carefully.
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 18:26 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
I'm sure they can. This doesn't make them the right solution for all
cases.
In a multi tier architecture, you already have front end servers
implementing URL strategies, common logging, all sorts of
My only interest in this is you are putting all the additional
complexity into the Apache server.
Considering the very common usage of Apache being used as
a reverse proxy and the need for URL-specific forwarding,
adding a cluster-like ability to Apache is the obvious
next step.
Will it
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 18:31 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
I get the sense that you would rather the developers scratch your itch
Their itch is not a problem for me ... and it isn't something I would
necessarily use apache for ... though for a small to medium scale setup
it might be very useful.
On Mon, July 31, 2006 6:39 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
I already accept that this seems to fait-accomplis. So I am just
arguing for entertainment purposes.
Which in turn means you're just wasting people's time.
Regards,
Graham
--
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 12:50 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
My only interest in this is you are putting all the additional
complexity into the Apache server.
Considering the very common usage of Apache being used as
a reverse proxy and the need for URL-specific forwarding,
adding a
Guy Hulbert wrote:
Absolutely :-). I have no intention of writing any code for perchild if
someone else (undoubtedly far more qualified than I) happens to want to
do it.
After looking at the code from subversion and having thought a little
more about 'perchild' I can see a few
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 17:30 +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Either way, the more options and the more flexibility, the better.
This is not true. There is always a limit. The difficult part is to
know when you've reached it, of course.
Also, it is a design choice. For example, perl (TMOWTDI)
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 19:00 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
On Mon, July 31, 2006 6:39 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
I already accept that this seems to fait-accomplis. So I am just
arguing for entertainment purposes.
Which in turn means you're just wasting people's time.
It's your choice
Mladen Turk wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Compiles/builds clean: passes test framework as well
as more normal usage tests ;)
-chartimeout_set;
+chartimeout_set;
-characquire_set;
-apr_size_t
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 13:05 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
One reason for a generic scoreboard would be to help make
perchild easier, since we could store the passed fd's in this
location alleviating some of the current problems.
Thanks.
I've seen all the traffic on the scoreboard and this is
I've seen all the traffic on the scoreboard and this is very useful
context ...
Also, I am using a similar scoreboard mechanism to collect lots of per
worker stats without the extendedstatus overhead.
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
Plüm wrote:
Please add it to the STATUS file of 2.2.x for voting.
Done.
Regards
Rüdiger
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Ben Laurie
Gesendet: Montag, 31. Juli 2006 16:13
An: Apache List
Betreff: Backport PCKS#7 patch to 2.2?
Will it be OK to do this?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
On Mon, July 31, 2006 6:43 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
This seems reasonable. Given paragraph 2 (URL strategies etc) Not for
the reasons I've omitted (and responded to separately). However, I
still don't think this will scale the way router-based solutions can
(already :-).
Users of
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 13:21 -0400, Brian Akins wrote:
I've seen all the traffic on the scoreboard and this is very useful
context ...
Also, I am using a similar scoreboard mechanism to collect lots of per
worker stats without the extendedstatus overhead.
I've been following discussion
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 19:34 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
On Mon, July 31, 2006 6:43 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
This seems reasonable. Given paragraph 2 (URL strategies etc) Not for
the reasons I've omitted (and responded to separately). However, I
still don't think this will scale the way
Guy Hulbert wrote:
That's the ultimate case, after all :-)
Not necessarily. Google's answer is to throw tons of hardware at stuff.
Which is great if you have unlimited space, power, and cooling. Some
other sites do some rather interesting things with a relatively small
number of servers
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 19:34 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
Users of mod_backhand (for httpd v1.3) would disagree, it's a similar
Greenspun:
http://philip.greenspun.com/scratch/scaling.adp
Asks the right question:
How are load balancers actually built?
and suggests: zeus, mod_backhand,
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 13:54 -0400, Brian Akins wrote:
Guy Hulbert wrote:
That's the ultimate case, after all :-)
Not necessarily. Google's answer is to throw tons of hardware at
stuff.
The point of contention was scalability ... from a human point of view
it is really annoying to have to
On 7/31/06, Guy Hulbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 13:54 -0400, Brian Akins wrote:
Guy Hulbert wrote:
That's the ultimate case, after all :-)
Not necessarily. Google's answer is to throw tons of hardware at
stuff.
The point of contention was scalability ... from a
Guy Hulbert wrote:
The point of contention was scalability ... from a human point of view
it is really annoying to have to solve a problem twice but from the
business pov, outgrowing your load balancer might only be a good thing.
Yes. But most load balancer can only do layer 7 load
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm trying to figure out which impl of the the
LB cluster set makes the most sense and would appreciate
the feedback.
Basically, I see 2 different methods:
1. Members in all cluster sets which have the same or
lower set numbers are checked
2. Only members is a
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 14:02 -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 7/31/06, Guy Hulbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 13:54 -0400, Brian Akins wrote:
Guy Hulbert wrote:
That's the ultimate case, after all :-)
Not necessarily. Google's answer is to throw tons of hardware
My experience: some organisations have a network group, that is able to
understand application communication behaviour and do a very good job in
making most of these features available via there load balancer
appliances and then benefit from their central administration, GUIs etc.
On the
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 20:15 +0200, Rainer Jung wrote:
So in principle most can be done on both sides, but often it's the
experience of the people, that decides on where to actually build the
solution.
Yup.
I did both solutions successfully and even had companies move from on
to
the
FWIW, this seems much more likely:
http://www.ultramonkey.org/about.shtml
In particular:
http://www.ultramonkey.org/3/installation-debian.sarge.html
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 14:29 -0400, Guy Hulbert wrote:
It seems that linux router is the wrong name. Here is the correct
project:
On 07/31/2006 07:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Mon Jul 31 10:01:40 2006
New Revision: 427172
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=427172view=rev
Log:
Add in a very simple balancer set concept, which allows
for members to be assigned to a particular cluster set
such
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Shouldn't that be while (cur_lbset = max_lbset !mycandidate);
(same question also for the other algorithm)?
I guess otherwise we would not check for the workers with the lbset max_lbset.
No, since we do the test at the end, after we've incremented.
If the current
On 07/31/2006 09:53 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Shouldn't that be while (cur_lbset = max_lbset !mycandidate);
(same question also for the other algorithm)?
I guess otherwise we would not check for the workers with the lbset max_lbset.
No, since we do the test at the
At AL there are reports that also with VC2005-IDE the 2.2.3 Windows source
gives issues.
Is it an idea to revert back to the 2.2.2 method ? there we had no reports
like this.
Indeed the unix source builds fine with VC2005 IDE.
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: William A. Rowe,
Steffen wrote:
At AL there are reports that also with VC2005-IDE the 2.2.3 Windows
source gives issues.
Is it an idea to revert back to the 2.2.2 method ? there we had no
reports like this.
Nope - the old version required awk to -build- the sources. Now, awk
is only needed to customize the
I understand now and I missed the script.
I have reports that all now is building fine with VC2005-IDE with the
Windows source after executing the script.
Thanks!
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Monday, July
Let me double check...
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Good catch by Ruediger. Fixed.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Let me double check...
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a
On 7/31/06, Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand now and I missed the script.
I have reports that all now is building fine with VC2005-IDE with the
Windows source after executing the script.
Thanks!
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
74 matches
Mail list logo
