On Tuesday 22 September 2009 7:03:36 am Jeff Trawick wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Ricardo Cantu <rica...@smartcsc.com> wrote: > > I'm a long time user of mod_fcgi > > BTW, I think you mean "mod_fastcgi." I haven't found a true "mod_fcgi," > though some people on the web have used that to refer to mod_fcgid.
Yes, mod_fastcgi, > > > and would like to start using mod_fcgid. I've > > been running mod_fcgi with a custom patch of mine. I like to see if it > > could > > be included in mod_fcgid or maybe you can give me an other way to > > accomplish > > what I need without the patch. What I have is one C program that lives on > > a linux server. I want to use a web browser as the UI. The C program is a > > classic "one instance to one UI". If 5 people want to run this program I > > need > > five separate and persistent copies of the program running, one for each > > person. When one is done then the program exits. > > What I've done is sym-linked my program to make unique program names > > like: > > program-1 > > program-2 > > program-3 > > etc.. > > Then each browser asks for a different name. > > plus the patch that allows setting killInterval to 0, so the process > > manager > > won't kill my process ever. Here are the settings: > > -maxClassProcesses 1 -singleThreshold 1 -killInterval 0. > > > > I know I could have done it with FastCGIExternalServer, but I wanted > > everything to be dynamic. > > I think this may work for you: > > DefaultMinClassProcessCount 1 > DefaultMaxClassProcessCount 1 > IdleTimeout 2147483647 > ProcessLifetime 2147483647 > > Those magic values for IdleTimeout and ProcessLifetime are as close to > "unlimited" as you can get with the current code. > > Note that these can only be set globally with mod_fcgid. That's probably a > much bigger problem than the "unlimited" hack. > It's seem very reasonable to have "0" (unlimited) as valid value for killInterval, IdleTimeout, and ProcessLifetime. As I don't think the actual time of zero seconds would make sense in any of those variables. Any objections to such a patch?
