mod_jserv/4340: socket connection to jserv should be bound to host address
Number: 4340 Category: mod_jserv Synopsis: socket connection to jserv should be bound to host address Confidential: no Severity: non-critical Priority: medium Responsible:jserv State: open Class: sw-bug Submitter-Id: apache Arrival-Date: Fri Apr 30 18:30:00 PDT 1999 Last-Modified: Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: apache Release:Apache 1.3.6, ApacheJServ-1.0b4 Environment: Linux 2.2, Solaris 2.6, 7 JDK 1.1.6 Description: when operating on a system with multiple virtual interfaces, it is necessary to specify a host IP address for the running jserv otherwise all connections are attempted against 127.0.0.1, which is typically not the correct process, if it exists at all. When a connection is started on an unnamed socket, the O/S will (somewhat randomly) assign the source address for the connection from the available virtual interfaces. This makes it difficult to define the list of acceptable hosts to the security.allowedAddresses property. I realize it is possible to avoid the collision by running jserv on separate ports for each http server instance. However this requires an external port allocation mechanism. Such allocation is already well established via the separate virtual interfaces. How-To-Repeat: have a host with multiple virtual interfaces, run two independent apache servers and try to get them to communicate with their respective jservs. Fix: At line 102 in jserv_ajpv11.c, add: ret=bind(sock,(struct sockaddr *)addr,sizeof(struct sockaddr_in)); This will set the source address to the target address, which should be correct for all cases I can think of as the jserv is guaranteed to be running on the local machine. I guess you should also test the return value :-) Audit-Trail: Unformatted: [In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] [you need to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc line ] [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] [If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig- ] [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ] [from a developer. ] [Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS! ]
config/4341: ErrorDocument directive ignored in virtual host definitions
Number: 4341 Category: config Synopsis: ErrorDocument directive ignored in virtual host definitions Confidential: no Severity: serious Priority: medium Responsible:apache State: open Class: sw-bug Submitter-Id: apache Arrival-Date: Sat May 1 06:30:01 PDT 1999 Last-Modified: Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: apache Release:1.3.6 Environment: Solaris 7 X86 base rev, egcs 1.1.2 athena# uname -a SunOS athena 5.7 Generic i86pc i386 i86pc Description: This is similar to a problem I reported and was corrected for an earlier version. I have host-based virtual hosts configured, and the ErrorDocument directive for the first virtual host defined is being used for all virtual hosts. How-To-Repeat: http://www.netlondon.com/ and enter a search term and submit. It won't find it, and instead of returning a 404 error page for netlondon, it returns the ErrorDocument for snpp.com, which is the first defined VirtualHost in the httpd.conf. Fix: It may be as simple as reapplying the original fix, perhaps it got lost in an RCS revision? Thanks in any case. -Gary Audit-Trail: Unformatted: [In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] [you need to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc line ] [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] [If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig- ] [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ] [from a developer. ] [Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS! ]
general/4342: MaxRequestsPerChild doesn't match server-status access number per child
Number: 4342 Category: general Synopsis: MaxRequestsPerChild doesn't match server-status access number per child Confidential: no Severity: non-critical Priority: medium Responsible:apache State: open Class: sw-bug Submitter-Id: apache Arrival-Date: Sat May 1 06:40:00 PDT 1999 Last-Modified: Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: apache Release:1.3.6 Environment: QNX 4.25 , Watcom 10.6 Description: When setting MaxRequestsPerChild to 200 for example, if you look the server-status you can see that number of accesses per child can go up to 500 , it seems that either MaxRequestsPerCild is not applied or the number of accesses per child of server-status is not accurate. How-To-Repeat: Fix: Audit-Trail: Unformatted: [In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] [you need to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc line ] [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] [If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig- ] [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ] [from a developer. ] [Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS! ]
other/4343: Activating a new module as a DSO
Number: 4343 Category: other Synopsis: Activating a new module as a DSO Confidential: no Severity: non-critical Priority: medium Responsible:apache State: open Class: change-request Submitter-Id: apache Arrival-Date: Sat May 1 08:30:00 PDT 1999 Last-Modified: Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: apache Release:1.3.6 Environment: Solaris 2.5 -- Generic_103093-25 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-1 Description: The configure script doesn't seem to support activating a new module as a DSO. I tried various combinations of the --activate-module and --enable-shared options to no avail. How-To-Repeat: My scenario consisted of creating a src/modules/blah directory with the right stuff to build libblah.so and then running configure as follows: ./configure --shadow --enable-module=so --enable-module=most \ --enable-shared=proxy --activate-module=src/modules/blah/libblah.so \ --enable-shared=blah Fix: I got around it by adding an --activate-shared option. My bloated implementation duplicates the --activate-module code, with a few small changes, and works for me on Solaris like this: ./configure --shadow --enable-module=so --enable-module=most \ --enable-shared=proxy --activate-shared=src/modules/blah/libblah.so The only changes over --with-activate-module are: echo ## (configure --activate-shared=$file) $addconf echo SharedModule $modfile $addconf and: eval shared_$module=yes Audit-Trail: Unformatted: [In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] [you need to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc line ] [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] [If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig- ] [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ] [from a developer. ] [Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS! ]
Re: mod_proxy/3178: Access Violation/SEGV in ap_proxy_cache_error
[In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] [you need to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc line ] [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] [If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig- ] [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ] [from a developer. ] [Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS! ] Synopsis: Access Violation/SEGV in ap_proxy_cache_error State-Changed-From-To: open-closed State-Changed-By: dgaudet State-Changed-When: Sat May 1 10:03:48 PDT 1999 State-Changed-Why: A patch has been committed to 1.3.7, thanks.
Re: config/3661: 'make install' ignores the --prefix dir specified during configuration
[In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] [you need to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc line ] [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] [If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig- ] [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ] [from a developer. ] [Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS! ] Synopsis: 'make install' ignores the --prefix dir specified during configuration State-Changed-From-To: feedback-closed State-Changed-By: dgaudet State-Changed-When: Sat May 1 10:16:59 PDT 1999 State-Changed-Why: User reports the problem is fixed in 1.3.6.
RE: protocol/3993: Incomplete Pages Loading Randomly (fwd)
The following reply was made to PR protocol/3993; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dean Gaudet [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: RE: protocol/3993: Incomplete Pages Loading Randomly (fwd) Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 10:15:52 -0700 (PDT) -- Forwarded message -- From: Darron Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: protocol/3993: Incomplete Pages Loading Randomly Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:38:53 +0100 It seems to indeed be a problem with incomplete packets. In particular something called TCP slow start. This is where when an initial connection is made between client and server the number of packets sent at once is slowly built up. This is where I ran into problems with my little Solaris server on the very large BBC WAN (Probably the largest single Network in the world with up to 50,000 devices connected to it). The default network set up for a Solaris 2.6 box is for a small LAN of about 10 units. Basically I had to do a little ndd tweaking of the device drivers in particular ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_slow_start_initial 2 to increase the number of initial packets sent out as there is an packet ACK problem in windows 95/IE 3.01 with HTTP 1.0 protocols. It seems to have cured most of the problem. Darron
Re: os-linux/4268: Performance drops off after high specweb loads on highperformance-conf-dist
The following reply was made to PR os-linux/4268; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dean Gaudet [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Karthik Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: os-linux/4268: Performance drops off after high specweb loads on highperformance-conf-dist Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 10:24:48 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Karthik Prabhakar wrote: From the strace, it appears that the read() from the socket is taking a bit of time, as well as the flock(). the flock() is not abnormal -- it's used for interprocess synchronization. The read() is also probably not a problem... it's usually client latency. I'm not sure what's up... I'm actually going to have a chance to test this stuff out on a high end linux box under specweb this weekend I think. So I may be able to repeat it. Dean
Re: general/4160: Reading large amounts of data
The following reply was made to PR general/4160; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dean Gaudet [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Peter Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: general/4160: Reading large amounts of data Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 10:27:23 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Peter Gordon wrote: This is where I am having a problem. From having a look at the source, it looks as if it goes out of its way to limit the size of the incoming information. It limits the incoming URI. You can't use URIs more than about 512 bytes without messing up older browsers, so there are various practical limits. Apache will handle up to about an 8k URI. When I POST less than 8K, the transfer works successfully. When I post more, I get the error message I don't understand how your POST is generating a huge URI. This is outside Apache's control. POST should generate a request body, and not change the URI. Or perhaps your script is generating a massive URI in the action= field. If so, then I suggest you move some of the data in that URI into hidden fields. Dean
Re: config/3714: Make returns a elf error message
[In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] [you need to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc line ] [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] [If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig- ] [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ] [from a developer. ] [Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS! ] Synopsis: Make returns a elf error message State-Changed-From-To: feedback-closed State-Changed-By: dgaudet State-Changed-When: Sat May 1 10:33:28 PDT 1999 State-Changed-Why: user reports gcc misconfiguration
Re: os-linux/3312: Children die. Parent stops serving requests
[In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ]
[you need to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc line ]
[and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done]
[automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ]
[If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig- ]
[nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ]
[from a developer. ]
[Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS! ]
Synopsis: Children die. Parent stops serving requests
State-Changed-From-To: feedback-analyzed
State-Changed-By: dgaudet
State-Changed-When: Sat May 1 10:39:02 PDT 1999
State-Changed-Why:
I examined the straces a while ago, but forgot to comment.
Here's a portion of the parent's trace:
time(NULL) = 909702870
wait4(-1, 0xbe64, WNOHANG, NULL)= 0
select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, {1, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
time(NULL) = 909702871
fork() = 26032
wait4(-1, [WIFEXITED(s) WEXITSTATUS(s) == 0], WNOHANG, NULL) = 26032
--- SIGCHLD (Child exited) ---
wait4(-1, 0xbe64, WNOHANG, NULL)= -1 ECHILD (No child processes)
select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, {1, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
time(NULL) = 909703113
Somehow 242 seconds passed between the two time() calls... the parent does
nothing cpu intensive, so I doubt it's that. It's possible the guy's box
is swapping to hell... but we've got about a dozen similar reports. The
reports are against 2.0.30, 2.0.32, and 2.0.33.
Oh then there's the odd SIGCHLD followed by ECHILD... there's a few other
instances of that -- SIGCHLDs happenning and wait4() not reporting
anything.
The short answer: kernel problem. Alan Cox hasn't heard of
this problem before, so it's probably an unknown problem.
Dean
Re: general/4224: I get an inconsistend error, incomplete header sent error, but it works fine with ALL other browsers
The following reply was made to PR general/4224; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dean Gaudet [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John Saario [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: general/4224: I get an inconsistend error, incomplete header sent error, but it works fine with ALL other browsers Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 10:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Oh, you're running apache in inetd mode? That mode probably has bugs... in fact I'm about to remove it from the server. Try running apache in standalone mode please. Dean On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, John Saario wrote: Dean I tried that by upgrading to apache 1.3.6 ... and putting in a no-keep alive for IE 5.0 but same result. KeepAlive On MaxKeepAliveRequests 100 KeepAliveTimeout 15 BrowserMatch Mozilla/2 nokeepalive BrowserMatch MSIE 4\.0b2; nokeepalive downgrade-1.0 force-response-1.0 BrowserMatch MSIE 5\.0; nokeepalive downgrade-1.0 force-response-1.0 As long as I don't need to change any auth settings from default this should work? Worse, and I have not yet reported this yet, but after 3 days apache 1.3.6 causes inetd to lock up on FreeBSD .. I tried this both on FreeBSD 3.0 and 2.2.6. If I try to login via telnet inetd bails with some pointer too low error. Restarting apache from the console doesn't fix it. Hup of inetd doesn't fix it, but killing inetd and restarting it does fix it. Of course server reboot will fix it as well. But anyway it doesn't show up on my servers for about 3 days that boom, locked out. Pretty serious for me since I am in Singapore and 5 of my servers are in the USA. Anyway, hope you can forward that on. Still getting the incomplete header information for all the IE 5.0 clients. I switched back to apache_1.1.1 because of the inetd problem. I didn't notice 1.3.6 seems to be as fast as older versions of apache and that is why I liked it and upgraded ... I'll be watching for the next release to see if it's fixed since I know most my servers are running very old ( but faster ) versions.
Re: os-linux/2986: after log rotation restart, all children die in hours. Parent is catatonic.
[In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] [you need to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc line ] [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] [If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig- ] [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ] [from a developer. ] [Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS! ] Synopsis: after log rotation restart, all children die in hours. Parent is catatonic. State-Changed-From-To: feedback-analyzed State-Changed-By: dgaudet State-Changed-When: Sat May 1 10:41:20 PDT 1999 State-Changed-Why: This sounds like the same kernel bug described in 3312: http://bugs.apache.org/index/full/3312 no solution known Dean
Re: os-linux/3343: Server dies after 1-20 hours of usage.
[In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] [you need to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc line ] [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] [If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig- ] [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ] [from a developer. ] [Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS! ] Synopsis: Server dies after 1-20 hours of usage. State-Changed-From-To: feedback-analyzed State-Changed-By: dgaudet State-Changed-When: Sat May 1 10:43:13 PDT 1999 State-Changed-Why: This sounds like the same kernel bug as reported in PR#3312: http://bugs.apache.org/index/full/3312 no workaround known at the moment Dean
Re: os-linux/3343: Server dies after 1-20 hours of usage.
[In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] [you need to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc line ] [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] [If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig- ] [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ] [from a developer. ] [Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS! ] Synopsis: Server dies after 1-20 hours of usage. State-Changed-From-To: analyzed-feedback State-Changed-By: dgaudet State-Changed-When: Sat May 1 10:49:35 PDT 1999 State-Changed-Why: Hey are you still having this problem? You indicated that it happens when some mailing list cron job runs. Do you use sendmail or qmail? When the problem happens, could you use strace -p pid_of_parent to find out what the parent is doing and mail me the output? Thanks Dean
Re: os-linux/3343: Server dies after 1-20 hours of usage. (fwd)
The following reply was made to PR os-linux/3343; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dean Gaudet [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: os-linux/3343: Server dies after 1-20 hours of usage. (fwd) Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 10:41:56 -0700 (PDT) -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:13:59 -0600 From: Darrin Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: os-linux/3343: Server dies after 1-20 hours of usage. As per your request, the following is the netstat -nt command issued after the server hung... [EMAIL PROTECTED] /root]# netstat -nt Active Internet connections (w/o servers) Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State tcp 368 0 206.65.73.212:80169.207.68.4:6337 CLOSE_WAIT tcp 368 0 206.65.73.212:80169.207.68.4:6326 CLOSE_WAIT tcp 391 0 206.65.73.205:80142.103.168.111:3458 CLOSE_WAIT tcp 416 0 206.65.73.205:80216.199.5.169:46679 ESTABLISHED tcp 343 0 206.65.73.205:80205.188.154.138:48871 CLOSE_WAIT tcp 311 0 206.65.73.205:80152.2.179.50:2072 CLOSE tcp 391 0 206.65.73.205:80142.103.168.111:3459 CLOSE_WAIT tcp 311 0 206.65.73.205:80152.2.179.50:2073 CLOSE tcp 289 0 206.65.73.205:8012.4.54.254:2060 CLOSE tcp 322 0 206.65.73.205:80139.78.213.97:3066 CLOSE_WAIT tcp 311 0 206.65.73.205:80152.2.179.50:2074 CLOSE tcp 416 0 206.65.73.205:80216.199.5.148:46680 ESTABLISHED tcp 1715 0 206.65.73.205:80142.103.168.111:3460 CLOSE_WAIT tcp 140 0 206.65.73.205:80209.67.244.80:2155 ESTABLISHED tcp 289 0 206.65.73.205:8012.4.54.254:2061 CLOSE tcp 270 0 206.65.73.205:80139.78.213.97:3094 CLOSE_WAIT tcp 289 0 206.65.73.205:8012.4.54.254:2062 CLOSE tcp 320 0 206.65.73.205:80128.171.242.1:23279 CLOSE_WAIT tcp 343 0 206.65.73.205:80205.188.154.138:60184 CLOSE_WAIT tcp 391 0 206.65.73.205:80142.103.168.111:3461 CLOSE_WAIT tcp 264 0 206.65.73.212:80206.101.224.99:34452 CLOSE_WAIT tcp 348 0 206.65.73.205:8012.4.54.254:2073 ESTABLISHED tcp0 0 206.65.73.205:80142.103.168.111:3462 ESTABLISHED tcp 385 0 206.65.73.205:80142.103.168.111:3463 CLOSE_WAIT tcp 264 0 206.65.73.212:80206.101.224.99:34554 CLOSE_WAIT tcp0124 206.65.73.205:23206.65.72.12:3243 ESTABLISHED tcp 241 0 206.65.73.205:80142.103.168.111:3471 ESTABLISHED tcp 342 0 206.65.73.205:80205.188.154.138:6924 ESTABLISHED Also, please be aware of the fact that the problem seemed to have changed when we upgraded to the Redhat 5.2rpm version of Apache.. now, instead of crashing every 20-24 hours, it is not expiring all requests, and eventually will lock up all available processes... I'll try and include a copy or you can view it yourself at http://www.v6fbody.com/server-status Login:apache Password:group Thank you. Darrin Martin ---snip- Comment-Added-By: dgaudet Comment-Added-When: Tue Mar 16 08:34:26 PST 1999 Comment-Added: When the problem happens, do a netstat -nt -- that should show to where the ESTABLISHED port 80 connections are ... I suspect something is just holding connections open. If that doesn't help, use strace on a few of the children to see what they're doing: strace -p pid_of_child Dean
Re: os-linux/2774: Heavily loaded webserver stops accepting all connections after some time.
[In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] [you need to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc line ] [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] [If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig- ] [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ] [from a developer. ] [Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS! ] Synopsis: Heavily loaded webserver stops accepting all connections after some time. Comment-Added-By: dgaudet Comment-Added-When: Sat May 1 10:51:54 PDT 1999 Comment-Added: Do you still have this problem with 1.3.6? We changed the default locking behaviour on linux back to the 1.2.x settings. Dean
Re: os-linux/3353: Server processes die, only one remains (root)
[In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] [you need to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc line ] [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] [If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig- ] [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ] [from a developer. ] [Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS! ] Synopsis: Server processes die, only one remains (root) Comment-Added-By: dgaudet Comment-Added-When: Sat May 1 10:53:46 PDT 1999 Comment-Added: Is your problem still occuring? I'm still interested in getting an strace of the parent process when the problem occurs... it sounds like a kernel bug which we're trying to get more data on so that we can get the linux folks to fix it. Dean
Re: os-linux/3897: 1.3.4 server starts, seemingly normally... dies, no children, no errors not the case with 1.2.0
[In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] [you need to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc line ] [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] [If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig- ] [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ] [from a developer. ] [Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS! ] Synopsis: 1.3.4 server starts, seemingly normally... dies, no children, no errors not the case with 1.2.0 Comment-Added-By: dgaudet Comment-Added-When: Sat May 1 10:56:49 PDT 1999 Comment-Added: [This is a standard response.] This Apache problem report has not been updated recently. Please reply to this message if you have any additional information about this issue, or if you have answers to any questions that have been posed to you. If there are no outstanding questions, please consider this a request to try to reproduce the problem with the latest software release, if one has been made since last contact. If we don't hear from you, this report will be closed. If you have information to add, BE SURE to reply to this message and include the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address so it will be attached to the problem report!
Re: os-linux/3312: Children die. Parent stops serving requests
On 1 May 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Somehow 242 seconds passed between the two time() calls... the parent does nothing cpu intensive, so I doubt it's that. It's possible the guy's box is swapping to hell... but we've got about a dozen similar reports. Nope. In that case the load ought to rise, which it didnot. The problem was worked around by disabling keep-alives. The reports are against 2.0.30, 2.0.32, and 2.0.33. After upgrading to kernel 2.0.36 and apache 1.3.4 I have been able to re-enable keepalives with no problems so far. The short answer: kernel problem. Alan Cox hasn't heard of this problem before, so it's probably an unknown problem. The short comment: Case appears solved by upgrading. /Ole
Re: os-linux/3312: Children die. Parent stops serving requests
The following reply was made to PR os-linux/3312; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Ole Tange [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: apache-bugdb@apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: os-linux/3312: Children die. Parent stops serving requests Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 22:12:38 +0200 (CEST) On 1 May 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Somehow 242 seconds passed between the two time() calls... the parent does nothing cpu intensive, so I doubt it's that. It's possible the guy's box is swapping to hell... but we've got about a dozen similar reports. Nope. In that case the load ought to rise, which it didnot. The problem was worked around by disabling keep-alives. The reports are against 2.0.30, 2.0.32, and 2.0.33. After upgrading to kernel 2.0.36 and apache 1.3.4 I have been able to re-enable keepalives with no problems so far. The short answer: kernel problem. Alan Cox hasn't heard of this problem before, so it's probably an unknown problem. The short comment: Case appears solved by upgrading. /Ole
Re: os-solaris/3848: mod_perl won't compile on Solaris 2.5
[In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, ] [you need to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the Cc line ] [and leave the subject line UNCHANGED. This is not done] [automatically because of the potential for mail loops. ] [If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig- ] [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request ] [from a developer. ] [Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS! ] Synopsis: mod_perl won't compile on Solaris 2.5 State-Changed-From-To: open-closed State-Changed-By: ask State-Changed-When: Sat May 1 15:52:30 PDT 1999 State-Changed-Why: If you still have this problem, then please take it to the modperl mailinglist, see the SUPPORT document in the mod_perl distribution on how to subscribe. It's not a known problem, and most likely a problem with your configuration, but I'm sure someone on the list can help you out!
