Re: svn commit: r264737 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/stopping.xml

2005-08-31 Thread Joe Orton
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:37:07PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 06:00:47PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
  On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 05:25:07PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
   So is mod_cgid still the default CGI module for worker because there 
   once existed some ye-olde-Unixes which had an interesting fork() 
   implementation?  Given that POSIX has mandated since 2001 or whatever 
   that fork() duplicates only the calling thread, is there any 
   disadvantage to using mod_cgi in all MPMs on modern platforms?
  
  Can't think of any, and performance is easy to measure. 
 
 Just some comparitive ab's, all with Linux 2.6.13, NPTL, 
 
 ab -n 5000 -c 10 http://localhost/cgi-bin/test-cgi
 
 
   MPM cgidcgi
 
   worker  594.28  588.69  req/sec. 
 
   event   665.11  661.28  req/sec. 
 
   leader  598.14  592.86  req/sec. 
 
   threadpool  594.94  591.87  req/sec. 
 
 There seems to be a very consistent .1% advantage to using mod_cgid, for
 me at least. Of course, cgid eats a process table entry and some memory,
 but fork()'ing a plain process does seem to be less overhead.

Apologies for the previous empty mail ;)

If the performance difference is that small then mod_cgi is definitely a 
better default IMO: it has much better stderr handling (the CGI bucket 
stuff) and it will log to the correct vhost-specific logs.

joe


Re: svn commit: r264737 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/stopping.xml

2005-08-31 Thread Colm MacCarthaigh
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:24:49AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
 Apologies for the previous empty mail ;)
 
 If the performance difference is that small then mod_cgi is definitely a 
 better default IMO: it has much better stderr handling (the CGI bucket 
 stuff) and it will log to the correct vhost-specific logs.

+1 on changing the default, cgid can remain available for .1% freaks. 

-- 
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: svn commit: r264737 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/stopping.xml

2005-08-31 Thread Jeff Trawick
On 8/31/05, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:24:49AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
  Apologies for the previous empty mail ;)
 
  If the performance difference is that small then mod_cgi is definitely a
  better default IMO: it has much better stderr handling (the CGI bucket
  stuff) and it will log to the correct vhost-specific logs.
 
 +1 on changing the default, cgid can remain available for .1% freaks.

I keep a quote from Ulrich Drepper on the wall behind my monitor
(somewhere between the TCP state transition diagram and how to write a
DVD on Linux):

No threaded program must use anything but _exit or exec after fork.

apr_proc_create() does a lot more than that.  It isn't that I believe
the statement to be the absolute truth given infinite programming time
and highly constrained web server APIs (neither of which we have), but
I believe it is wise to follow anyway.

Sadly, mod_ext_filter calls apr_proc_create() similar to mod_cgi and
is subject to race conditions in threaded servers under heavy load,
with pipe handles open in the wrong processes which prevent the
children from seeing EOF on their stdin (due to magic of fork, handles
intended for a particular child get duped in another child).  A lock
to be held by any code dorking with file descriptors or forking is
needed to prevent file descriptors from being duplicated unexpectedly
in children.

What about mutexes?  Does the forked, held mutex get released
automatically by the new child when it does exec()?  Does it depend on
which type of mutex?  Is APR going to have to use atfork handlers to
clean up its own mutexes to prepare for this scenario?  (which
wouldn't help the typical commercial third-party module which has its
own portability layer to support deployment in Apache, IIS, SunOne,
etc.)

(I keep the idea of a fork service in the back of my mind, which
generalizes the daemon feature of mod_cgid for use by any Apache
modules which need to create child processes from MPM threads.)


Re: svn commit: r264737 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/stopping.xml

2005-08-31 Thread Joe Orton
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 06:54:03AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
 On 8/31/05, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:24:49AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
   Apologies for the previous empty mail ;)
  
   If the performance difference is that small then mod_cgi is definitely a
   better default IMO: it has much better stderr handling (the CGI bucket
   stuff) and it will log to the correct vhost-specific logs.
  
  +1 on changing the default, cgid can remain available for .1% freaks.
 
 I keep a quote from Ulrich Drepper on the wall behind my monitor
 (somewhere between the TCP state transition diagram and how to write a
 DVD on Linux):
 
 No threaded program must use anything but _exit or exec after fork.

 apr_proc_create() does a lot more than that.  It isn't that I believe
 the statement to be the absolute truth given infinite programming time
 and highly constrained web server APIs (neither of which we have), but
 I believe it is wise to follow anyway.

must not use anything but async-signal-safe functions is actually what 
the standard requires FWIW.

 Sadly, mod_ext_filter calls apr_proc_create() similar to mod_cgi and
 is subject to race conditions in threaded servers under heavy load,
 with pipe handles open in the wrong processes which prevent the
 children from seeing EOF on their stdin (due to magic of fork, handles
 intended for a particular child get duped in another child).  A lock
 to be held by any code dorking with file descriptors or forking is
 needed to prevent file descriptors from being duplicated unexpectedly
 in children.

Ah, I always forget about this people using threaded servers are 
doomed scenario.  I guess all the people voting to make worker the 
default MPM do too...

Regardless of cgid vs cgi, how much of this is it feasible to fix?  APR 
has to require that all child_cleanup functions are async-signal-safe; 
that's probably doable.  Can apr_proc_create just do some close all fds 
 3 in the forked child?  I guess it all gets too icky.

joe


Re: svn commit: r264737 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/stopping.xml

2005-08-30 Thread Colm MacCarthaigh
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:24:17AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/stopping.xml
 URL: 
 http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/stopping.xml?rev=264737r1=264736r2=264737view=diff
 ==
 --- httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/stopping.xml (original)
 +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/stopping.xml Tue Aug 30 01:24:14 2005
 @@ -190,13 +190,15 @@
  pThe codeWINCH/code or codegraceful-stop/code signal causes
  the parent process to emadvise/em the children to exit after
  their current request (or to exit immediately if they're not
 -serving anything). The parent will then remove it's directive 
 +serving anything). The parent will then remove its directive 

erk :)

  module=mpm_commonPidFile/directive and cease listening on
  all ports. The parent will continue to run, and monitor children
  which are handling requests. Once all children have finalised
  and exited or the timeout specified by the directive 
  module=mpm_commonGracefulShutdownTimeout/directive has been
 -reached, the parent will also exit./p
 +reached, the parent will also exit.  If the timeout is reached,
 +any remaining children will be sent the codeTERM/code signal
 +to force them to exit./p

This is only the case on prefork, on the threaded MPM's its more
complicated that that. The children are told via the pod to exit, but
TERM is not sent explicitly, instead the children will get sent HUP due
to parent exit.

This has all sorts of consequences, the most annoying of which is that
both stop and graceful-stop actually won't kill CGI processes when
using a threaded MPM/cgid.

-- 
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: svn commit: r264737 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/stopping.xml

2005-08-30 Thread Joe Orton
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 02:27:20PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:24:17AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   module=mpm_commonPidFile/directive and cease listening on
   all ports. The parent will continue to run, and monitor children
   which are handling requests. Once all children have finalised
   and exited or the timeout specified by the directive 
   module=mpm_commonGracefulShutdownTimeout/directive has been
  -reached, the parent will also exit./p
  +reached, the parent will also exit.  If the timeout is reached,
  +any remaining children will be sent the codeTERM/code signal
  +to force them to exit./p
 
 This is only the case on prefork, on the threaded MPM's its more
 complicated that that. The children are told via the pod to exit, but
 TERM is not sent explicitly, instead the children will get sent HUP due
 to parent exit.

Ah right, thanks.  I guess I'll just change this to have a behaviour 
may vary across MPMs disclaimer...

 This has all sorts of consequences, the most annoying of which is that
 both stop and graceful-stop actually won't kill CGI processes when
 using a threaded MPM/cgid.

So is mod_cgid still the default CGI module for worker because there 
once existed some ye-olde-Unixes which had an interesting fork() 
implementation?  Given that POSIX has mandated since 2001 or whatever 
that fork() duplicates only the calling thread, is there any 
disadvantage to using mod_cgi in all MPMs on modern platforms?

joe


Re: svn commit: r264737 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/stopping.xml

2005-08-30 Thread Colm MacCarthaigh
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 05:25:07PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
  This has all sorts of consequences, the most annoying of which is that
  both stop and graceful-stop actually won't kill CGI processes when
  using a threaded MPM/cgid.
 
 So is mod_cgid still the default CGI module for worker because there 
 once existed some ye-olde-Unixes which had an interesting fork() 
 implementation?  Given that POSIX has mandated since 2001 or whatever 
 that fork() duplicates only the calling thread, is there any 
 disadvantage to using mod_cgi in all MPMs on modern platforms?

Can't think of any, and performance is easy to measure. 

Either way, might be worth doing something like;

http://people.apache.org/~colm/cgid-kill-children.patch

in cgid itself, to help fix the immediate problem. Of course that patch
won't help with suexec CGI's, since the daemon won't have permission to
send the child a signal.

-- 
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: svn commit: r264737 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/stopping.xml

2005-08-30 Thread Colm MacCarthaigh
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 06:00:47PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 05:25:07PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
   This has all sorts of consequences, the most annoying of which is that
   both stop and graceful-stop actually won't kill CGI processes when
   using a threaded MPM/cgid.
  
  So is mod_cgid still the default CGI module for worker because there 
  once existed some ye-olde-Unixes which had an interesting fork() 
  implementation?  Given that POSIX has mandated since 2001 or whatever 
  that fork() duplicates only the calling thread, is there any 
  disadvantage to using mod_cgi in all MPMs on modern platforms?
 
 Can't think of any, and performance is easy to measure. 

Just some comparitive ab's, all with Linux 2.6.13, NPTL, 

ab -n 5000 -c 10 http://localhost/cgi-bin/test-cgi


MPM cgidcgi

worker  594.28  588.69  req/sec. 

event   665.11  661.28  req/sec. 

leader  598.14  592.86  req/sec. 

threadpool  594.94  591.87  req/sec. 

There seems to be a very consistent .1% advantage to using mod_cgid, for
me at least. Of course, cgid eats a process table entry and some memory,
but fork()'ing a plain process does seem to be less overhead.

-- 
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: svn commit: r264737 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/stopping.xml

2005-08-30 Thread Joe Orton
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:37:07PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 06:00:47PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
  On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 05:25:07PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
This has all sorts of consequences, the most annoying of which is that
both stop and graceful-stop actually won't kill CGI processes when
using a threaded MPM/cgid.
   
   So is mod_cgid still the default CGI module for worker because there 
   once existed some ye-olde-Unixes which had an interesting fork() 
   implementation?  Given that POSIX has mandated since 2001 or whatever 
   that fork() duplicates only the calling thread, is there any 
   disadvantage to using mod_cgi in all MPMs on modern platforms?
  
  Can't think of any, and performance is easy to measure. 
 
 Just some comparitive ab's, all with Linux 2.6.13, NPTL, 
 
 ab -n 5000 -c 10 http://localhost/cgi-bin/test-cgi
 
 
   MPM cgidcgi
 
   worker  594.28  588.69  req/sec. 
 
   event   665.11  661.28  req/sec. 
 
   leader  598.14  592.86  req/sec. 
 
   threadpool  594.94  591.87  req/sec. 
 
 There seems to be a very consistent .1% advantage to using mod_cgid, for
 me at least. Of course, cgid eats a process table entry and some memory,
 but fork()'ing a plain process does seem to be less overhead.
 
 -- 
 Colm MacC�rthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]