William T wrote:
There are all kinds of problems that you'll encounter and have to solve if you fork. I found it's better to call at(1) to start another seperate process immediatly. If you need to pass data JSON worked really well for me.

Thanks, that's what I ended up doing. First I ended up having to move the processing into an external script call anyway, and then I tried Apache2::SubProcess, and it ended up working, but my script was randomly receiving TERM signals... it's handleable of course, but I decided to go with the 'at' technique, it's safer that way, I suppose.



On Aug 25, 2009 5:12 AM, "Victor Danilchenko" <vic...@askonline.net <mailto:vic...@askonline.net>> wrote:

       Hi all,

I need to be able to fork an Apache process in daemon form, to do some housekeeping which might potentially take a few seconds. However, when I do that, I start getting SQL errors (of the "connection lost" type) in the browser. I do the fairly standard cleanup to daemonize the child process, but of course it needs to retain the SQL socket open. Here is my forking code:

sub modperl_kamikaze_fork () {
   # You will have to do CORE::exit(0) at the end of the execution.

   $SIG{CHLD} = 'IGNORE';
   get_m->flush_buffer;
   defined (my $kid = fork) or die "Cannot fork: $!\n";
   return $kid if $kid;

   my $r = get_r;
   close STDIN; open STDIN, '/dev/null'
       or die "Can't read /dev/null: $!";
   close STDOUT; open STDOUT, '>/dev/null'
       or die "Can't write to /dev/null: $!";
   close STDERR; open STDERR, '>>/tmp/form.log'
       or die "Cannot open /tmp/fork.log\n";
   setsid
       or die "Can't start a new session: $!";

   my $oldfh = select STDERR;
   local $| = 1;
   select $oldfh;
   warn "Child (PID $$) spawned.\n";

   $r->child_terminate;
}


The Apache2:Subprocess doesn't help me, because I need not to spawn an external process, but to finish processing in mod_perl context -- just without bugging the user with it.

Any ideas on how to either fork better, or how to solve this without forking (e.g. is there a way to 'append' a function call to the request after the rest of the request is completed)?

       Many thanks in advance.

--
       Victor Danilchenko
       Senior Software Engineer, AskOnline.net
       vic...@askonline.net <mailto:vic...@askonline.net> - 617-273-0119



--
        Victor Danilchenko
        Senior Software Engineer, AskOnline.net
        vic...@askonline.net - 617-273-0119

Reply via email to