pradeep kumar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Unfortunately the fix didn't help. The 100% CPU utilization is still
> seen. Can you suggest what else could be causing this large CPU utilization.
Not unless you could follow the directions at
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/debugging.html#backtrace
which may show
Hi,
Unfortunately the fix didn't help. The 100% CPU utilization is still
seen. Can you suggest what else could be causing this large CPU
utilization.
Regards,
PradeepOn 8/21/06, pradeep kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jon,
Thanks for letting me know that this issue wont be seen on HPUX. I'll
Hi Jon,
Thanks for letting me know that this issue wont be seen on HPUX. I'll check with the orginal fix that Jeff suggested.
Regards,
PradeepOn 8/20/06, Jon Snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pradeep,HP-UX will not be affected by the SSL card issue as it was SUN hardware/driverissue that caused the
Pradeep,
HP-UX will not be affected by the SSL card issue as it was SUN hardware/driver
issue that caused the CPU to spin. I would upgrade to the latest apache
version 2.2.3 to eliminate any bugs that may have already been fixed. There
were a couple of ssl related ones fixed in 2.0.56 for mod_
Hi Jon,
Sorry if i mislead you into assuming that I am using Solaris. I am
using HP-UX 11iv2. Is HP-UX also affected? In this case also SSL is
being used.
Regards,
PradeepOn 8/17/06, Jon Snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pradeep,I can't remember if I posted the results of the SSL issue and high CP
Pradeep,
I can't remember if I posted the results of the SSL issue and high CPU usage.
We tracked it to a bug in the solaris driver for the Sun daughter card, some
mutex issue if my memory serves me correctly. Sun confirmed and issued a
patch a while ago. As discussed in the quoted post I did
Hi,
I'll try that and get back with the result.
Thanks,
Pradeep
On 8/16/06, Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/16/06, pradeep kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yep, proxy_connect has been enabled. So we dont have an equivalent patch for> 2.0? As I mentioned the problem is seen with
On 8/16/06, pradeep kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yep, proxy_connect has been enabled. So we dont have an equivalent patch for
2.0? As I mentioned the problem is seen with 2.0.55 and not 2.0.53.
There's no reason the patch can't be put into 2.0... Apply this patch
and report back on whethe
Hi,
Yep, proxy_connect has been enabled. So we dont have an equivalent patch for 2.0? As I mentioned the problem is seen with 2.0.55 and not 2.0.53.
Thanks and Regards,
Pradeep
On 8/14/06, Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/14/06, pradeep kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> More info
On 8/14/06, pradeep kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
More info..
The problem is seen with 2.0.55. It wasn't seen with 2.0.53. Haven't tried
2.0.58 or 2.0.59 yet. The change log for 2.0.58 doesn't seem to indicate any
fix for this problem.
Here is a patch for the proxy connect path for a simil
More info..
The problem is seen with 2.0.55. It wasn't seen with 2.0.53. Haven't tried 2.0.58 or 2.0.59 yet. The change log for 2.0.58 doesn't seem to indicate any fix for this problem.
On 8/14/06, pradeep kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I notice there is a 100% CPU utilization which sp
Hi,
I notice there is a 100% CPU utilization which spikes for sometime and then goes back to normalcy when Apache is used a reverse proxy. I noticed a mail thread which seems to be a similar problem
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200510.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED].
One thread of
12 matches
Mail list logo