Matt S Trout wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:20:53AM -0400, Matt Pitts wrote:
>>> The accept() happens in the child in normal situations though, so the
>>> parent can't know how many requests a given child has handled without
>>> additional complication.
>> Yeap. My version of the "additional c
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt S Trout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 1:23 PM
> To: The elegant MVC web framework
> Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Memory leak under FastCGI?
>
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:20:53AM -0400, Matt Pitts wrote:
> >
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:20:53AM -0400, Matt Pitts wrote:
> > The accept() happens in the child in normal situations though, so the
> > parent can't know how many requests a given child has handled without
> > additional complication.
>
> Yeap. My version of the "additional complication" is a li
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt S Trout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 10:35 AM
> To: The elegant MVC web framework
> Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Memory leak under FastCGI?
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 03:11:56PM -0400, Matt Pitts wrote:
> &
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 03:11:56PM -0400, Matt Pitts wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matt S Trout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 12:33 PM
> > To: The elegant MVC web framework
> > Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Memory leak under
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt S Trout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 12:33 PM
> To: The elegant MVC web framework
> Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Memory leak under FastCGI?
>
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 10:52:54AM -0400, Matt Pitts wrote:
>
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 10:52:54AM -0400, Matt Pitts wrote:
> As of now, I'm trying to hack up a better ProcManager based on
> FCGI::Engine::ProcManager that actually recycles its children using
> options like MaxRequestPerChild. Hopefully, I'll be able to get it done
> and cleaned up enough to rel
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt S Trout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 1:18 PM
> To: The elegant MVC web framework
> Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Memory leak under FastCGI?
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 03:32:12PM -0400, Matt Pitts wrote:
> >
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 03:32:12PM -0400, Matt Pitts wrote:
> I have not yet determined if the conversion from mod_fcgid to
> mod_fastcgi external is when the RAM usage started climbing - still
> awaiting system reports - but, there haven't been an substantial changes
> to the app since then that I
up X childs and then a blocking wait().
v/r
-matt pitts
From: Matthieu Codron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 5:22 AM
To: The elegant MVC web framework
Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Memory leak under FastCGI?
There was something about growing FastCGI processes
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:22 AM, Matthieu Codron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was something about growing FastCGI processes in the Catalyst advent
> calendar:
>
> http://www.catalystframework.org/calendar/2007/18
>
> In short: Apparently this is normal behavior, and the article recommends
> y
There was something about growing FastCGI processes in the Catalyst advent
calendar:
http://www.catalystframework.org/calendar/2007/18
In short: Apparently this is normal behavior, and the article recommends
you, like you suggested, to periodically restart fastcgi processes to keep
memory usage r
We have a Catalyst app that I recently (about a month ago) converted
from running under mod_fcgid to external under mod_fastcgi and it
appears to be leaking memory. There are 2 application backends and they
both suffered oom-killer events within six minutes of one another
yesterday and one of them
13 matches
Mail list logo
