On Tue, 17 May 2016 10:16:43 +0200 André Warnier <a...@ice-sa.com> wrote: > > I don't see above any signifiant difference in configuration between the > servers, apart > from the fact that the "faulty" server runs a 64-bit version of perl.
Sorry : slightly digressive rant about the fact that every time I compare my configs, I find some subtle differences. Should be getting into config management tools, but that takes time too. > > Now I also found this : > http://rabexc.org/posts/randomizing-should-be-easy-right-oh > > I am not sure that I really understand this all the way down, but would this > not be a > suspect in a case where the behaviour seems different between one 64-bit > machine, and a > bunch of 32-bit ones ? Nope; same results on both types when running the script > > This being said, it still looks to me as if the current code is flawed on > *all* machines, > and *will* repeat keys quite often. It just depends again on the exact > sequence of > requests hitting a specific Apache, and the other parameters I mentioned > before. > I still believe that the fact that it does not *seem* to happen, is just due > to the > inherent randomness of these other factors on the production machines. > Well, I already posted a test with ab and 12 000 requests, so not sure about the 'quite often' part? This is on the faulty one : xxxx@arsene:~$ perl -le '%h=();for (1..10_000_000) {my $session_id = join "", map +(0..9,"a".."z","A".."Z")[rand(10+26*2)], 1..32;$h{$session_id}=1};$v=keys %h; print $v' 10000000 -- Bien à vous, Vincent Veyron https://libremen.com Logiciels de gestion, libres
