> Sorry, I forgot to post the answer the day I've written it, > > I did not fully understand your response, cause it's about uwsgi > implementation details, but it seems you did confirm the problem, didn't > you?
yes, currently harakiri (and user_harakiri) works reliably only in multiprocess mode. > Do you have any estimates of when 2.1 would be out? it did not started yet, so i assume it will happen not before may. i am investigating if the thing can be applied to 2.0 > > Thanks, Roberto! > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Roberto De Ioris <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Roberto, could you please give a comment on this? Thanks a lot! >> > >> > >> > oops, sorry, completely missed it, i will give a look tomorrow morning >> >> >> first round: >> >> - start request for /index.html >> - set harakiri to 5 seconds >> - start request for /ws >> - re-set harakiri to 5 seconds >> - /index.html ends, harakiri set to 0 (race condition!!!) >> - all continues until the next request is managed... >> >> second round >> >> - start request for /ws (as idnex.html is no more needed) >> - set harakiri to 5 seconds >> - harakiri is now honoured ... >> >> >> Harakiri and multiple cores does not play well, but i am pretty >> confident >> we can find a solution in 2.1. Some idea ? (maybe it is enough to >> maintain >> the harakiri per-core instead of per-worker) >> >> >> -- >> Roberto De Ioris >> http://unbit.it >> _______________________________________________ >> uWSGI mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi >> > _______________________________________________ > uWSGI mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi > -- Roberto De Ioris http://unbit.it _______________________________________________ uWSGI mailing list [email protected] http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
