On 4/26/06, Henrik Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ons 2006-04-26 klockan 11:13 -0300 skrev Gonzalo Arana: > > > I proposed min_alive to limit helper recycle rate, not to increase it. > > I know, and I question the need to have this lower limit on the helper > restarts. > > > max_requests imposes a relation between request rate and helper > > recycle rate. If request rate increases drastically (not a difficult > > thing to do), helpers may start recycling too fast. > > Only if max_requests is set relatively low compared to how buggy the > helper is. It should only be set low if there is serious problems, in > which case you actually want to have it restarted even if the request > rate is high.
I see your point now (max_requests should be big enough). > > agreed :D. I am no having troubles with my helpers, but process > > rotation is a good policy (at some extent). > > As long as the helpers behave reasonably the daily rotation done as part > of the log rotation process should be sufficient. Indeed. > > helper rotation would help not only as a dirty way of coping with > > resource leakage, but as well as a way of using shorter idle timeouts > > for database conections. > > idle timeouts is best managed in the helpers imho. And if this was the Right. > gole there would be a need for a "restart_interval" option rather than > min_alive, placing an upper limit on how long the helper is kept > running. I have no particular issue with my own helpers, it just came to my mind that helper rotation should bring benefits and no troubles. I understand now that helper rotation rate should be slow anyway, so it would not bring concerns. Regards, -- Gonzalo A. Arana
