Re: Installing mod_perl-1.24_01 w/o super user and with global perl
Ian Kallen wrote: If I were you, I'd install my own perl in /home/eedalf, create /home/eedlf/apache and then do (assuming ~/bin/perl is before /opt/local/bin/perl in your path) something like: Thanks, that's how I had it before - with Perl 5.6.0, Apache 1.1.3 and mod_perl 1.24 in my home dir. However this tyme I'd like to use the system-wide Perl - because of my disk quota. perl Makefile.PL \ APACHE_PREFIX=/home/eedalf/apache \ APACHE_SRC=/home/eedalf/src/apache_1.3.14 \ DO_HTTPD=1 \ USE_APACI=1 \ LIB=/home/eedalf/lib/perl \ EVERYTHING=1 is this error message, when calling "make install"
Re: Installing mod_perl-1.24_01 w/o super user and with global perl
Sorry, s#1\.1\.3#1.3.13#
RE: How do you run libapreq-0.31/eg/perl/file_upload.pl ?
-Original Message- From: Alexander Farber (EED) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: How do you run libapreq-0.31/eg/perl/file_upload.pl ? [snip] 2) After putting PerlModule Apache::Request Location /cgi-bin/file_upload.pl SetHandler perl-script PerlHandler Apache::Request /Location that won't work - Apache::Request is not a PerlHandler. remember that Perl*Handlers default to calling handler(), which Apache::Request doesn't have (which is exactly what your error_log says) into my httpd.conf, I get the following in my error_log: [Thu Jan 4 10:47:39 2001] [notice] Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_perl/1.24_01 configured -- resuming normal operations [Thu Jan 4 10:47:51 2001] [error] Undefined subroutine Apache::Request::handler cal led. [snip] 3) And the: PerlModule Apache::Request PerlModule Apache::Registry Location /cgi-bin/file_upload.pl SetHandler perl-script PerlHandler Apache::Registry Options ExecCGI PerlSendHeader On /Location well, almost... either change that to a Files directive or remove the filename from the Location directive, so that Apache::Request applies to all scripts within cgi-bin... see http://perl.apache.org/guide/config.html for more details... Displays the web form, but nothing happens (same form displayed again), when I click the "Process File" button and nothing is shown in the error_log. Also I have sometimes to reload several times to see a change. Should I wrap the code in the file_upload.pl into a "package"? no - keep it simple while you figure things out... Can't I use Apache::Request w/o Apache::Registry? Apache::Request can be used without Apache::Registry, as long as you use it properly. They aren't the same type of module - compare man Apache::Request and man Apache::Registry Am I loading the modules wrong way? I should of course read and re-read the complete guide and finish the Eagle book (I will), yes :) but maybe someone can provide me a small kick-start? Thank you HTH --Geoff Regards Alex
Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_perl withscripts that contain un-shared memory
Sorry for the late reply - I've been out for the holidays. By the way, how are you doing it? Do you use a mutex routine that works in LIFO fashion? Speedycgi uses separate backend processes that run the perl interpreters. The frontend processes (the httpd's that are running mod_speedycgi) communicate with the backends, sending over the request and getting the output. Speedycgi uses some shared memory (an mmap'ed file in /tmp) to keep track of the backends and frontends. This shared memory contains the queue. When backends become free, they add themselves at the front of this queue. When the frontends need a backend they pull the first one from the front of this list. I am saying that since SpeedyCGI uses MRU to allocate requests to perl interpreters, it winds up using a lot fewer interpreters to handle the same number of requests. What I was saying is that it doesn't make sense for one to need fewer interpreters than the other to handle the same concurrency. If you have 10 requests at the same time, you need 10 interpreters. There's no way speedycgi can do it with fewer, unless it actually makes some of them wait. That could be happening, due to the fork-on-demand model, although your warmup round (priming the pump) should take care of that. What you say would be true if you had 10 processors and could get true concurrency. But on single-cpu systems you usually don't need 10 unix processes to handle 10 requests concurrently, since they get serialized by the kernel anyways. I'll try to show how mod_perl handles 10 concurrent requests, and compare that to mod_speedycgi so you can see the difference. For mod_perl, let's assume we have 10 httpd's, h1 through h10, when the 10 concurent requests come in. h1 has aquired the mutex, and h2-h10 are waiting (in order) on the mutex. Here's how the cpu actually runs the processes: h1 accepts h1 releases the mutex, making h2 runnable h1 runs the perl code and produces the results h1 waits for the mutex h2 accepts h2 releases the mutex, making h3 runnable h2 runs the perl code and produces the results h2 waits for the mutex h3 accepts ... This is pretty straightforward. Each of h1-h10 run the perl code exactly once. They may not run exactly in this order since a process could get pre-empted, or blocked waiting to send data to the client, etc. But regardless, each of the 10 processes will run the perl code exactly once. Here's the mod_speedycgi example - it too uses httpd's h1-h10, and they all take turns running the mod_speedycgi frontend code. But the backends, where the perl code is, don't have to all be run fairly - they use MRU instead. I'll use b1 and b2 to represent 2 speedycgi backend processes, already queued up in that order. Here's a possible speedycgi scenario: h1 accepts h1 releases the mutex, making h2 runnable h1 sends a request to b1, making b1 runnable h2 accepts h2 releases the mutex, making h3 runnable h2 sends a request to b2, making b2 runnable b1 runs the perl code and sends the results to h1, making h1 runnable b1 adds itself to the front of the queue h3 accepts h3 releases the mutex, making h4 runnable h3 sends a request to b1, making b1 runnable b2 runs the perl code and sends the results to h2, making h2 runnable b2 adds itself to the front of the queue h1 produces the results it got from b1 h1 waits for the mutex h4 accepts h4 releases the mutex, making h5 runnable h4 sends a request to b2, making b2 runnable b1 runs the perl code and sends the results to h3, making h3 runnable b1 adds itself to the front of the queue h2 produces the results it got from b2 h2 waits for the mutex h5 accepts h5 release the mutex, making h6 runnable h5 sends a request to b1, making b1 runnable b2 runs the perl code and sends the results to h4, making h4 runnable b2 adds itself to the front of the queue This may be hard to follow, but hopefully you can see that the 10 httpd's just take turns using b1 and b2 over and over. So, the 10 conncurrent requests end up being handled by just two perl backend processes. Again, this is simplified. If the perl processes get blocked, or pre-empted, you'll end up using more of them. But generally, the LIFO will cause SpeedyCGI to sort-of settle into the smallest number of processes needed for the task. The difference between the two approaches is that the mod_perl implementation forces unix to use 10 separate perl processes, while the mod_speedycgi implementation sort-of decides on the fly how many different processes are needed. Please let me know what you think I should change. So far my benchmarks only show one trend, but if you can tell me specifically what I'm doing wrong (and it's something reasonable), I'll try it. Try setting MinSpareServers
RE: mod_perl confusion.
-Original Message- From: Tom Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: mod_perl confusion. Hello All, I've recently looked through the mod_perl mail archives in order to find someone who has/had the same problem as me. It seems that a lot of people have had problems with virtualhost IP and location in situations where both virtualhost sections has a similar URI and scriptname. This problem causes random execution of either of the scripts no matter what virtualhost you're accessing. Like exampleA.com/cgi-bin/script exampleB.com/cgi-bin/script try setting $Apache::Registry::NameWithVirtualHost = 1; in your startup.pl and make sure that you are use()ing Apache::Registry in there as well... and see if that fixes things... HTH --Geoff [snip] Thanks. Friendly Regards /TK
Re: Linux Hello World Benchmarks: +PHP,JSP,ePerl
JR Mayberry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Modperl handler benchmark, which was done on a dual P3 500mhz on Linux does serious injustice to mod_perl. Anyone who uses Linux knows how horrible it is on SMP, I think some tests showed it uses as litle as 25% of the second processor.. It's an old post, but I simply cannot let this one pass uncommented. I run a busy Apache/mod_perl server on a 4-way SMP Linux box (kernel 2.2.13 from VA Linux), and it sure seems to be using all CPUs quite effectively. A simple benchmark with 'ab' shows the number of requests per second almost double when the concurrency is increased from 1 to 2. With a concurrency of 4, the number of requests per second increases to about 3.2 times the original, which is not bad at all considering that these are dynamic requests with DB queries. Anyway, I wouldn't expect the OS's SMP to be the limiting factor on Apache's dynamic page performance. Apache uses multiple processes, and dynamic page generation is generally CPU bound, not I/O bound. -- Roger Espel Llima, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.iagora.com/~espel/index.html
Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_perl withscriptsthat contain un-shared memory
This is planned for a future release of speedycgi, though there will probably be an option to set a maximum number of bytes that can be bufferred before the frontend contacts a perl interpreter and starts passing over the bytes. Currently you can do this sort of acceleration with script output if you use the "speedy" binary (not mod_speedycgi), and you set the BufsizGet option high enough so that it's able to buffer all the output from your script. The perl interpreter will then be able to detach and go handle other requests while the frontend process waits for the output to drain. Perrin Harkins wrote: What I was saying is that it doesn't make sense for one to need fewer interpreters than the other to handle the same concurrency. If you have 10 requests at the same time, you need 10 interpreters. There's no way speedycgi can do it with fewer, unless it actually makes some of them wait. That could be happening, due to the fork-on-demand model, although your warmup round (priming the pump) should take care of that. I don't know if Speedy fixes this, but one problem with mod_perl v1 is that if, for instance, a large POST request is being uploaded, this takes a whole perl interpreter while the transaction is occurring. This is at least one place where a Perl interpreter should not be needed. Of course, this could be overcome if an HTTP Accelerator is used that takes the whole request before passing it to a local httpd, but I don't know of any proxies that work this way (AFAIK they all pass the packets as they arrive).
Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_perl withscripts that contain un-shared memory
- Original Message - From: "Sam Horrocks" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Perrin Harkins" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "Gunther Birznieks" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "mod_perl list" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 6:56 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_perl withscripts that contain un-shared memory Are the speedycgi+Apache processes smaller than the mod_perl processes? If not, the maximum number of concurrent requests you can handle on a given box is going to be the same. The size of the httpds running mod_speedycgi, plus the size of speedycgi perl processes is significantly smaller than the total size of the httpd's running mod_perl. That would be true if you only ran one mod_perl'd httpd, but can you give a better comparison to the usual setup for a busy site where you run a non-mod_perl lightweight front end and let mod_rewrite decide what is proxied through to the larger mod_perl'd backend, letting apache decide how many backends you need to have running? The reason for this is that only a handful of perl processes are required by speedycgi to handle the same load, whereas mod_perl uses a perl interpreter in all of the httpds. I always see at least a 10-1 ratio of front-to-back end httpd's when serving over the internet. One effect that is difficult to benchmark is that clients connecting over the internet are often slow and will hold up the process that is delivering the data even though the processing has been completed. The proxy approach provides some buffering and allows the backend to move on more quickly. Does speedycgi do the same? Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rewrite arguments?
This may or may not be a mod_perl question: I want to change the way an existing request is handled and it can be done by making a proxy request to a different host but the argument list must be slightly different.It is something that a regexp substitution can handle and I'd prefer for the front-end server to do it via mod_rewrite but I can't see any way to change the existing arguments via RewriteRules. To make the new server accept the old request I'll have to modify the name of one of the arguments and add some extra ones. I see how to make mod_rewrite add something, but not modify the existing part. Will I have to let mod_perl proxy with LWP instead or have I missed something about mod_rewrite? (Modifying the location portion is easy, but the argument list seems to be handled separately). Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[bordering on OT] Re: Linux Hello World Benchmarks: +PHP,JSP,ePerl
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Roger Espel Llima wrote: JR Mayberry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linux does serious injustice to mod_perl. Anyone who uses Linux knows how horrible it is on SMP, I think some tests showed it uses as litle as 25% of the second processor.. A simple benchmark with 'ab' shows the number of requests per second almost double when the concurrency is increased from 1 to 2. With a concurrency of 4, the number of requests per second increases to about 3.2 times the original, which is not bad at all considering that these are dynamic requests with DB queries. Eh, ab isn't really made as anything other than the most coarsely-grained of benchmarks. Concurrency testing is useless because it will measure the ratio of requests/second/processor, not the scalability of requests from single to multiple processors. IOW, you would see almost exactly that same increase in req/second on a single processor, most likely, unless you have a really slow machine. You'd have to tune your load to give you one req/second/processor and then go from there for it to mean anything. Of course the original poster's statement on linux using only 25% of a second CPU is a fuddy and false generalization, but that's a different story. :P -- Blue Lang, Unix Voodoo Priest 202 Ashe Ave, Apt 3, Raleigh, NC. 919 835 1540 "I was born in a city of sharks and sailors!" - June of 44
Re: the edge of chaos
Hi there, On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Justin wrote: So dropping maxclients on the front end means you get clogged up with slow readers instead, so that isnt an option.. Try looking for Randall's posts in the last couple of weeks. He has some nice stuff you might want to have a play with. Sorry, I can't remember the thread but if you look in Geoff's DIGEST you'll find it. Thanks again Geoff! 73, Ged.
RE: the edge of chaos
-Original Message- From: G.W. Haywood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:35 AM To: Justin Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: the edge of chaos Hi there, On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Justin wrote: So dropping maxclients on the front end means you get clogged up with slow readers instead, so that isnt an option.. Try looking for Randall's posts in the last couple of weeks. He has some nice stuff you might want to have a play with. Sorry, I can't remember the thread but if you look in Geoff's DIGEST you'll find it. I think you mean this: http://forum.swarthmore.edu/epigone/modperl/phoorimpjun and this thread: http://forum.swarthmore.edu/epigone/modperl/zhayflimthu (which is actually a response to Justin :) Thanks again Geoff! glad to be of service :) --Geoff 73, Ged.
Re: the edge of chaos
"J" == Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: J When things get slow on the back end, the front end can fill with J 120 *requests* .. all queued for the 20 available modperl slots.. J hence long queues for service, results in nobody getting anything, You simply don't have enough horsepower to serve your load, then. Your options are: get more RAM, get faster CPU, make your application smaller by sharing more code (pretty much whatever else is in the tuning docs), or split your load across multiple machines. If your front ends are doing nothing but buffering the pages for the mod_perl backends, then you probably need to lower the ratio of frontends to back ends from your 6 to 1 to something like 3 to 1. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Vivek Khera, Ph.D.Khera Communications, Inc. Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497 AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/
Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_perl withscriptsthat contain un-shared memory
"Jeremy Howard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A backend server can realistically handle multiple frontend requests, since
the frontend server must stick around until the data has been delivered
to the client (at least that's my understanding of the lingering-close
issue that was recently discussed at length here).
I won't enter the {Fast,Speedy}-CGI debates, having never played
with these, but the picture you're painting about delivering data to
the clients is just a little bit too bleak.
With a frontend/backend mod_perl setup, the frontend server sticks
around for a second or two as part of the lingering_close routine,
but it doesn't have to wait for the client to finish reading all the
data. Fortunately enough, spoonfeeding data to slow clients is
handled by the OS kernel.
--
Roger Espel Llima, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iagora.com/~espel/index.html
Re: mod_perl confusion.
"TK" == Tom Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TK I've recently looked through the mod_perl mail archives in order to find TK someone who has/had the same problem as me. You should have found discussion about the variable $Apache::Registry::NameWithVirtualHost in the archives. Curiously, it seems not to be documented in the perldoc for Apache::Registry. It defaults to 1 in Registry version 2.01 so unless you're using a *really* old mod_perl it should work as expected with virtual hosts. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Vivek Khera, Ph.D.Khera Communications, Inc. Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497 AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/
missing docs
In answering another question today, I noticed that the variable $Apache::Registry::NameWithVirtualHost is not documented in the perldoc for Apache::Registry. While scanning the Registry.pm file, I further noticed that there is a call to $r-get_server_name for the virtual host name. This too is not documented in perldoc Apache. The only documented way I see to get this from the $r object is to use $r-server-server_hostname. Should $r-get_server_name() be documented, or is it a "private" method? It seems wasteful to create an Apache::Server object just to fetch the virtual host name. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Vivek Khera, Ph.D.Khera Communications, Inc. Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497 AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/
RE: How do you run libapreq-0.31/eg/perl/file_upload.pl ?
but maybe someone can provide
me a small kick-start? Thank you
short answer -- you don't need anything more that some simple
scripting. Nothing at all in the server start up file.
client html file
form action=myupload.plx encoding ='MULTIPART/FORM-DATA'
method=post
input type=file name=myfile size=15
input type=submit
/form
server side
BEGIN {
use Apache;
use Apache::Request;
# etc.
}
my $r = Apache-request;
my $apr = Apache::Request-new($r);
@_ = $apr-param; # get the query parmaters
foreach(@_) {
$qs{$_} = $apr-param($_);
}
open(F,'somefiletosave.xxx');
my $uploadhandle = $apr-upload-fh;
select F;
$| = 1;
select STDOUT;
while(read($fh,$_,1000)) {
print F $_;
}
close F;
# bye now.
1;
This is short and sweet. It's up to you to insert appropriate error
checking and failure escapes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [bordering on OT] Re: Linux Hello World Benchmarks: +PHP,JSP,ePerl
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 09:55:39AM -0500, Blue Lang wrote: Eh, ab isn't really made as anything other than the most coarsely-grained of benchmarks. Concurrency testing is useless because it will measure the ratio of requests/second/processor, not the scalability of requests from single to multiple processors. Yeah, I agree 'ab' is a pretty coarse benchmark. However, it does in a way measure how much the various processors are helping, because running ab with -c 1 should pretty much ensure that apache only uses one processor at a time (except for a slight overlap while one process does the logging and another could be reading the next request from another processor), and similarily -c 2 should let apache use 2 processors at one given time. All approximately, of course. Anyway, on that 4way server it works that way; the requests per second increase quickly with the concurrency up to 4, but don't increase anymore after that. That is serving relatively slow dynamic pages; with static content I'd expect more rapidly diminishing returns. -- Roger Espel Llima, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.iagora.com/~espel/index.html
seg faults/bus errors
Hi, I work on a high-traffic site that uses apache/mod_perl, and we're seeing some occasional segmentation faults and bus errors in our apache error logs. These errors sometimes result in the entire apache process group going down, though it seems to me that the problems originate within one of apache's child processes (maybe shared memory is getting corrupted somehow?). I've searched through the archive of this list for similar situations, and I found a lot of questions about seg faults, but none quite matching our problem. We installed some signal handlers in our perl code that trap SIGSEGV and SIGBUS and then dump a perl stack trace to a log file (see below). Using this stack information, we can track the point of failure to a call to perl's "fork()" inside the IPC::Open3 standard module. Since it seems very unlikely that fork() is broken, we're speculating that there's some funny business going on prior to the fork that's putting the process into an unstable state which prevents it from forking successfully. Due to a lot of sloppy, pre-existing Perl code, we're using PerlRun (not Registry) with "PerlRunOnce On" (children die after servicing one hit). Does anyone have any suggestions about what might be going on here? Thanks! Justin Caballero The following are: a backtrace from a core dump, the stack trace from the perl signal handler, and the version information for our environment. - apache1.3.12 mod_perl1.24 - (gdb) where #0 0xe765c in Perl_sv_free () #1 0xd89f4 in Perl_hv_free_ent () #2 0xd8bd8 in Perl_hv_clear () #3 0xd8b3c in Perl_hv_clear () #4 0x10e760 in Perl_pp_fork () #5 0x11b1d0 in Perl_runops_standard () #6 0xa49e8 in perl_call_sv () #7 0xa4490 in perl_call_method () #8 0x2aea8 in perl_call_handler () #9 0x2a6e0 in perl_run_stacked_handlers () #10 0x28da0 in perl_handler () #11 0x6e0f8 in ap_invoke_handler () #12 0x8a8e8 in ap_some_auth_required () #13 0x8a96c in ap_process_request () #14 0x7e3e4 in ap_child_terminate () #15 0x7e770 in ap_child_terminate () #16 0x7ece8 in ap_child_terminate () #17 0x7f54c in ap_child_terminate () #18 0x7fe80 in main () - SIGSEGV caught at: IPC::Open3, /opt/perl-5.005_03/lib/5.00503/IPC/Open3.pm, 102, main::cgi_stack_dump IPC::Open3, /opt/perl-5.005_03/lib/5.00503/IPC/Open3.pm, 150, IPC::Open3::xfork IPC::Open2, /opt/perl-5.005_03/lib/5.00503/IPC/Open2.pm, 91, IPC::Open3::_open3 Cyxsub, /prod/APP/vobs/ssp/cgi-bin/Cyxsub.pm, 69, IPC::Open2::open2 Cyxsub, /prod/APP/vobs/ssp/cgi-bin/Cyxsub.pm, 152, Cyxsub::sd_connect main, /prod/ssp_2.8_mp_prod_sv.001212/vobs/ssp_perl/cgi-bin/hy_inquiry_zc.pl, 43, Cyxsub::xs_ods_main main, /prod/ssp_2.8_mp_prod_sv.001212/vobs/ssp_perl/cgi-bin/cp_pers-io_zc.pl, 39, main::obtain_data main, /prod/APP/vobs/ssp/cgi-bin/cp_pers_ub.pl, 285, main::cp_pers_io_zc_get_data_from_host main, /prod/APP/vobs/ssp/cgi-bin/cp_pers_ub.pl, 208, main::cp_pers_ub_online_update main, /prod/APP/vobs/ssp/cgi-bin/cp_pers_ub.pl, 70, main::cp_pers_ub_update_ok main, /prod/APP/vobs/ssp/cgi-bin/cp_pers_ub.pl, 39, main::cp_pers_ub_main Apache::PerlRun, /opt/perl-5.005_03/lib/site_perl/5.005/sun4-solaris/Apache/PerlRun.pm, 122, (eval) Apache::PerlRun, /opt/perl-5.005_03/lib/site_perl/5.005/sun4-solaris/Apache/PerlRun.pm, 296, Apache::PerlRun::compile Apache::Constants, /prod/ssp_2.8_mp_prod_sv.001212/vobs/ssp_perl/cgi-bin/opa_common_zc.pl, 0, Apache::PerlRun::handler Apache::Constants, /prod/ssp_2.8_mp_prod_sv.001212/vobs/ssp_perl/cgi-bin/opa_common_zc.pl, 0, (eval) - perl -V Summary of my perl5 (5.0 patchlevel 5 subversion 3) configuration: Platform: osname=solaris, osvers=2.6, archname=sun4-solaris uname='sunos atlas 5.6 generic_105181-19 sun4u sparc sunw,ultra-250 ' hint=recommended, useposix=true, d_sigaction=define usethreads=undef useperlio=undef d_sfio=undef Compiler: cc='gcc -B/usr/ccs/bin/', optimize='-O', gccversion=2.95.2 19991024 (release) cppflags='-I/usr/local/include' ccflags ='-I/usr/local/include' stdchar='unsigned char', d_stdstdio=define, usevfork=false intsize=4, longsize=4, ptrsize=4, doublesize=8 d_longlong=define, longlongsize=8, d_longdbl=define, longdblsize=16 alignbytes=8, usemymalloc=y, prototype=define Linker and Libraries: ld='gcc -B/usr/ccs/bin/', ldflags =' -L/usr/local/lib' libpth=/usr/local/lib /lib /usr/lib /usr/ccs/lib libs=-lsocket -lnsl -ldl -lm -lc -lcrypt libc=, so=so, useshrplib=false, libperl=libperl.a Dynamic Linking: dlsrc=dl_dlopen.xs, dlext=so, d_dlsymun=undef, ccdlflags=' ' cccdlflags='-fPIC', lddlflags='-G -L/usr/local/lib' Characteristics of this binary (from libperl): Built under solaris Compiled at Jul 11 2000 15:12:53 @INC: /opt/perl5.005_03-gcc/lib/5.00503/sun4-solaris /opt/perl5.005_03-gcc/lib/5.00503
RE: missing docs
-Original Message- From: Vivek Khera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:23 PM To: Mod Perl List Subject: missing docs In answering another question today, I noticed that the variable $Apache::Registry::NameWithVirtualHost is not documented in the perldoc for Apache::Registry. While scanning the Registry.pm file, I further noticed that there is a call to $r-get_server_name for the virtual host name. This too is not documented in perldoc Apache. The only documented way I see to get this from the $r object is to use $r-server-server_hostname. Should $r-get_server_name() be documented, or is it a "private" method? they are both documented (along with their differences) in the Eagle book - I guess perldoc Apache is just behind (as seems to be the usual case)... Andrew Ford's new mod_perl Pocket Reference goes a long way toward documenting new functionality as of 1.24, but I suppose it's virually impossible to keep up with the pace of development. Just take a look at the Changes file from 1.24 to current cvs. ack... --Geoff It seems wasteful to create an Apache::Server object just to fetch the virtual host name. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Vivek Khera, Ph.D.Khera Communications, Inc. Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497 AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/
Re: seg faults/bus errors
Hi, I work on a high-traffic site that uses apache/mod_perl, and we're seeing some occasional segmentation faults and bus errors in our apache error logs. These errors sometimes result in the entire apache process group going down, though it seems to me that the problems originate within one of apache's child processes (maybe shared memory is getting corrupted somehow?). Don't overlook the possibility of a flaky mbrd or memory. I finally gave up and replaced my BP6 with another mbrd and my segfaults magically went away. All the same components except the mbrd. The sucker seemed solid, would do big compiles, with high load averages, etc... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ab and cookies
does anyone have any experience with ab and sending multiple cookies ?
It appears to be chaining cookies together, ie:
I'm doing -C cookie1=value1 -C cookie2=value2
and im retreiving cookies with
CGI::Cookie-parse($r-header_in('Cookie'));
and foreaching %cookies and its doing something like
cookie1's value is 'value1%2C%20cookie2'...
any clues, the only bugs i've seen is someone saying ab didnt support
cookies, but that may have been an older message..
--
*
Re: the edge of chaos
Hi, Thanks for the links! But. I wasnt sure what in the first link was useful for this problem, and, the vacuum bots discussion is really a different topic. I'm not talking of vacuum bot load. This is real world load. Practical experiments (ok - the live site :) convinced me that the well recommended modperl setup of fe/be suffer from failure and much wasted page production when load rises just a little above *maximum sustainable throughput* .. If you want to see what happens to actual output when this happens, check this gif: http://www.dslreports.com/front/eth0-day.gif From 11am to 4pm (in the jaggie middle secton delineated by the red bars) I was madly doing sql server optimizations to get my head above water.. just before 11am, response time was sub-second. (That whole day represents about a million pages). Minutes after 11am, response rose fast to 10-20 seconds and few people would wait that long, they just hit stop.. (which doesnt provide my server any relief from their request). By 4pm I'd got the SQL server able to cope with current load, and everything was fine after that.. This is all moot if you never plan to get anywhere near max throughput.. nevertheless.. as a business, if incoming load does rise (hopefully because of press) I'd rather lose 20% of visitors to a "sluggish" site, than lose 100% of visitors because the site is all but dead.. I received a helpful recommendation to look into "lingerd" ... that would seem one approach to solve this issue.. but a lingerd setup is quite different from popular recommendations. -Justin On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 11:06:35AM -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote: -Original Message- From: G.W. Haywood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:35 AM To: Justin Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: the edge of chaos Hi there, On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Justin wrote: So dropping maxclients on the front end means you get clogged up with slow readers instead, so that isnt an option.. Try looking for Randall's posts in the last couple of weeks. He has some nice stuff you might want to have a play with. Sorry, I can't remember the thread but if you look in Geoff's DIGEST you'll find it. I think you mean this: http://forum.swarthmore.edu/epigone/modperl/phoorimpjun and this thread: http://forum.swarthmore.edu/epigone/modperl/zhayflimthu (which is actually a response to Justin :) Thanks again Geoff! glad to be of service :) --Geoff 73, Ged. -- Justin Beech http://www.dslreports.com Phone:212-269-7052 x252 FAX inbox: 212-937-3800 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://dslreports.com/contacts
Re: the edge of chaos
I need more horsepower. Yes I'd agree with that ! However... which web solution would you prefer: A. (ideal) load equals horsepower: all requests serviced in =250ms load slightly more than horsepower: linear falloff in response time, as a function of % overload ..or.. B. (modperl+front end) load equals horsepower: all requests serviced in =250ms sustained load *slightly* more than horsepower site too slow to be usable by anyone, few seeing pages Don't all benchmarks (of disk, webservers, and so on), always continue increasing load well past optimal levels, to check there are no nasty surprises out there.. ? regards -justin On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 11:10:25AM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote: "J" == Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: J When things get slow on the back end, the front end can fill with J 120 *requests* .. all queued for the 20 available modperl slots.. J hence long queues for service, results in nobody getting anything, You simply don't have enough horsepower to serve your load, then. Your options are: get more RAM, get faster CPU, make your application smaller by sharing more code (pretty much whatever else is in the tuning docs), or split your load across multiple machines. If your front ends are doing nothing but buffering the pages for the mod_perl backends, then you probably need to lower the ratio of frontends to back ends from your 6 to 1 to something like 3 to 1. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Vivek Khera, Ph.D.Khera Communications, Inc. Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497 AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/ -- Justin Beech http://www.dslreports.com Phone:212-269-7052 x252 FAX inbox: 212-937-3800 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://dslreports.com/contacts
Re: the edge of chaos
i see 2 things here, classic queing problem, and the fact that swapping to disk is 1000's of times slower than serving from ram. if you receive 100 requests per second but only have the ram to serve 99, then swapping to disc occurs which slows down the entire system. the next second comes and 100 new requests come in, plus the 1 you had in the queue that did not get serviced in the previous second. after a little while, your memory requirements start to soar, lots of swapping is occuring, and requests are coming in at a higher rate than can be serviced by an ever slowing machine. this leads to a rapid downward spiral. you must have enough ram to service all the apache processes that are allowed to run at one time. its been my experience that once swapping starts to occur, the whole thing is going to spiral downward very quickly. you either need to add more ram, to service that amount of apache processes that need to be running simultaneously, or you need to reduce MaxClients and let apache turn away requests. -- ___cliff [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.genwax.com/ P.S. used your service several times with good results! (and no waiting) thanks! Justin wrote: I need more horsepower. Yes I'd agree with that ! However... which web solution would you prefer: A. (ideal) load equals horsepower: all requests serviced in =250ms load slightly more than horsepower: linear falloff in response time, as a function of % overload ..or.. B. (modperl+front end) load equals horsepower: all requests serviced in =250ms sustained load *slightly* more than horsepower site too slow to be usable by anyone, few seeing pages Don't all benchmarks (of disk, webservers, and so on), always continue increasing load well past optimal levels, to check there are no nasty surprises out there.. ? regards -justin On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 11:10:25AM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote: "J" == Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: J When things get slow on the back end, the front end can fill with J 120 *requests* .. all queued for the 20 available modperl slots.. J hence long queues for service, results in nobody getting anything, You simply don't have enough horsepower to serve your load, then. Your options are: get more RAM, get faster CPU, make your application smaller by sharing more code (pretty much whatever else is in the tuning docs), or split your load across multiple machines. If your front ends are doing nothing but buffering the pages for the mod_perl backends, then you probably need to lower the ratio of frontends to back ends from your 6 to 1 to something like 3 to 1. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Vivek Khera, Ph.D.Khera Communications, Inc. Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497 AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/ -- Justin Beech http://www.dslreports.com Phone:212-269-7052 x252 FAX inbox: 212-937-3800 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://dslreports.com/contacts
Re: the edge of chaos
Justin wrote: Thanks for the links! But. I wasnt sure what in the first link was useful for this problem, and, the vacuum bots discussion is really a different topic. I'm not talking of vacuum bot load. This is real world load. Practical experiments (ok - the live site :) convinced me that the well recommended modperl setup of fe/be suffer from failure and much wasted page production when load rises just a little above *maximum sustainable throughput* .. The fact that mod_proxy doesn't disconnect from the backend server when the client goes away is definitely a problem. I remember some discussion about this before but I don't think there was a solution for it. I think Vivek was correct in pointing out that your ultimate problem is the fact that your system is not big enough for the load you're getting. If you can't upgrade your system to safely handle the load, one approach is to send some people away when the server gets too busy and provide decent service to the ones you do allow through. You can try lowering MaxClients on the proxy to help with this. Then any requests going over that limit will get queued by the OS and you'll never see them if the person on the other end gets tired of waiting and cancels. It's tricky though, because you don't want a bunch of slow clients to tie up all of your proxy processes. It's easy to adapt the existing mod_perl throttling handlers to send a short static "too busy" page when there are more than a certain number of concurrent requests on the site. Better to do this on the proxy side though, so maybe mod_throttle could do it for you. - Perrin
Re: Apache::AuthCookieDBI BEGIN problems...??
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 12:02:15AM -0600, Jeff Sheffield wrote:
I am ashamed ... I twitled with the shiny bits.
my $auth_name = "WhatEver";
$SECRET_KEYS{ $auth_name } = "thisishtesecretkeyforthisserver";
### END MY DIRTY HACK
Note that without MY DIRTY LITTLE HACK it does not set those two
variables. I am/was pretty sure that this somehow relates to
"StackedHandlers"
I believe the problem is a known documentation bug with the module. I need
to fix the docs and make a new release (have been meaning to for, oh,
five months now) but I no longer work at the place that originally paid
me to write the module and haven't had a chance so far. I have a few other
patches to integrate too. I believe your specific problem stems
from having the:
PerlModule Apache::AuthCookieDBI
line before the
PerlSetVar WhatEverDBI_SecretKeyFile /www/domain.com/test.key
line in the server config file. Yes, the documentation has it the wrong
way around. The reason is that the server reads this configuration
directive at module load time (i.e. with PerlModule, at server start time
when it's still running as root) so that it can preload the secret keys
from files on disk. You want those files to be root-owned and only
readable by root, which is why it does it at start time. Try putting
all your DBI_SecretKeyFile directives before the PerlModule line and
see if that fixes your problem.
It should give better diagnostics when this problem comes up, I need to
fix that. Right now I don't even have this module running anywhere, but
I will install it again on my home machine at least, for testing.
Hopefully I will have a new release and an announce notice for this out
soon.
--
Jacob Davies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
getting rid of multiple identical http requests (bad users double-clicking)
Does anyone out there have a clean, happy solution to the problem of users jamming on links buttons? Analyzing our access logs, it is clear that it's relatively common for users to click 2,3,4+ times on a link if it doesn't come up right away. This not good for the system for obvious reasons. I can think of a few ways around this, but I was wondering if anyone else had come up with anything. Here are the avenues I'm exploring: 1. Implementing JavaScript disabling on the client side so that links become 'click-once' links. 2. Implement an MD5 hash of the request and store it on the server (e.g. in a MySQL server). When a new request comes in, check the MySQL server to see whether it matches an existing request and disallow as necessary. There might be some sort of timeout mechanism here, e.g. don't allow identical requests within the span of the last 20 seconds. Has anyone else thought about this? cheers, Ed
Re: getting rid of multiple identical http requests (bad users double-clicking)
"Ed" == Ed Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ed Has anyone else thought about this? If you're generating the form on the fly (and who isn't, these days?), just spit a serial number into a hidden field. Then lock out two or more submissions with the same serial number, with a 24-hour retention of numbers you've generated. That'll keep 'em from hitting "back" and resubmitting too. To keep DOS attacks at a minimum, it should be a cryptographically secure MD5, to prevent others from lojacking your session. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
Re: getting rid of multiple identical http requests (bad users double-clicking)
Sorry if this solution has been mentioned before (i didn't read the earlier
parts of this thread), and I know it's not as perfect as a server-side
solution...
But I've also seen a lot of people use javascript to accomplish the same
thing as a quick fix. Few browsers don't support javascript. Of the small
amount that don't, the venn diagram merge of browsers that don't do
javascript and users with an itchy trigger finger is very small. The
advantage is that it's faster than mungling your own server-side code with
extra logic to prevent double posting.
Add this to the top of the form:
SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript"
!--
var clicks = 0;
function submitOnce() {
clicks ++;
if (clicks 2) {
return true;
} else {
// alert("You have already clicked the submit button. " +
clicks + " clicks");
return false;
}
}
//--
/SCRIPT
And then just add the submitOnce() function to the submit event for the
form tag.
At 05:26 PM 1/4/01 -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Ed" == Ed Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ed Has anyone else thought about this?
If you're generating the form on the fly (and who isn't, these days?),
just spit a serial number into a hidden field. Then lock out two or
more submissions with the same serial number, with a 24-hour retention
of numbers you've generated. That'll keep 'em from hitting "back" and
resubmitting too.
To keep DOS attacks at a minimum, it should be a cryptographically
secure MD5, to prevent others from lojacking your session.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
__
Gunther Birznieks ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
eXtropia - The Web Technology Company
http://www.extropia.com/
Javascript - just say no(t required)
"Gunther" == Gunther Birznieks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gunther But I've also seen a lot of people use javascript to accomplish the Gunther same thing as a quick fix. Few browsers don't support javascript. Of Gunther the small amount that don't, the venn diagram merge of browsers that Gunther don't do javascript and users with an itchy trigger finger is very Gunther small. The advantage is that it's faster than mungling your own Gunther server-side code with extra logic to prevent double posting. My browser "supports" Javascript, but has it turned off whenever I'm going to an unknown web page. Presuming that the CERT notices are being posted widely enough, there are demonstratably *more* people with Javascript turned off today than ever before. That means you can use Javascript to enhance the experience, but I'll come over and rip your throat out (if I knew your address) if you make it required for basic services. And don't forget the corporate firewalls that strip Javascript for security reasons. And the hundreds of new "net devices" showing up that understand HTTP and XHTML, but nothing about Javascript. Javascript. Just say no(t required). -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
Re: Javascript - just say no(t required)
Yeah, but in the real world regardless of the FUD about firewalls and the like... The feedback that I have had from people using this technique is that the apps that have had this code implemented experience dramatic reduction in double postings to the point where they no longer exist. And the code I posted is not making the basic application unavailable. It just allows double-postings if javascript is not enabled which in practice isn't that much when you consider the intersection of people who double click and the people likely to have JS disabled. For a heavily used site, I would recommend ultimately a better server-side solution because the amount of time to develop and maintain a server side solution is "worth it", but it's not as easy and quick to fix an app in this respect as it is to add a quickie javascript fix for the short-term or for an app that it's not worth spending more time on. There's a lot of similar FUD about using cookies (not accepted on PDAs, people scared of them, etc). Personally, I don't like to program using cookies and I have my browser explicitly warn me of the cookie before accepting (which does slow down my browsing experience but is most interesting),, but the reality is that shedloads of sites use them to enhance the user experience but don't make it a problem if they don't go and use them. Anyway, whatever. Happy New Year! :) Speaking of which, I guess the non-use of Cookies and JavaScript would make a great NY Resolution... At 06:00 PM 1/4/2001 -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: "Gunther" == Gunther Birznieks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gunther But I've also seen a lot of people use javascript to accomplish the Gunther same thing as a quick fix. Few browsers don't support javascript. Of Gunther the small amount that don't, the venn diagram merge of browsers that Gunther don't do javascript and users with an itchy trigger finger is very Gunther small. The advantage is that it's faster than mungling your own Gunther server-side code with extra logic to prevent double posting. My browser "supports" Javascript, but has it turned off whenever I'm going to an unknown web page. Presuming that the CERT notices are being posted widely enough, there are demonstratably *more* people with Javascript turned off today than ever before. That means you can use Javascript to enhance the experience, but I'll come over and rip your throat out (if I knew your address) if you make it required for basic services. And don't forget the corporate firewalls that strip Javascript for security reasons. And the hundreds of new "net devices" showing up that understand HTTP and XHTML, but nothing about Javascript. Javascript. Just say no(t required). -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! __ Gunther Birznieks ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) eXtropia - The Web Technology Company http://www.extropia.com/
Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_perl withscripts that contain un-shared memory
Hi Sam, I think we're talking in circles here a bit, and I don't want to diminish the original point, which I read as "MRU process selection is a good idea for Perl-based servers." Your tests showed that this was true. Let me just try to explain my reasoning. I'll define a couple of my base assumptions, in case you disagree with them. - Slices of CPU time doled out by the kernel are very small - so small that processes can be considered concurrent, even though technically they are handled serially. - A set of requests can be considered "simultaneous" if they all arrive and start being handled in a period of time shorter than the time it takes to service a request. Operating on these two assumptions, I say that 10 simultaneous requests will require 10 interpreters to service them. There's no way to handle them with fewer, unless you queue up some of the requests and make them wait. I also say that if you have a top limit of 10 interpreters on your machine because of memory constraints, and you're sending in 10 simultaneous requests constantly, all interpreters will be used all the time. In that case it makes no difference to the throughput whether you use MRU or LRU. What you say would be true if you had 10 processors and could get true concurrency. But on single-cpu systems you usually don't need 10 unix processes to handle 10 requests concurrently, since they get serialized by the kernel anyways. I think the CPU slices are smaller than that. I don't know much about process scheduling, so I could be wrong. I would agree with you if we were talking about requests that were coming in with more time between them. Speedycgi will definitely use fewer interpreters in that case. I found that setting MaxClients to 100 stopped the paging. At concurrency level 100, both mod_perl and mod_speedycgi showed similar rates with ab. Even at higher levels (300), they were comparable. That's what I would expect if both systems have a similar limit of how many interpreters they can fit in RAM at once. Shared memory would help here, since it would allow more interpreters to run. By the way, do you limit the number of SpeedyCGI processes as well? it seems like you'd have to, or they'd start swapping too when you throw too many requests in. But, to show that the underlying problem is still there, I then changed the hello_world script and doubled the amount of un-shared memory. And of course the problem then came back for mod_perl, although speedycgi continued to work fine. I think this shows that mod_perl is still using quite a bit more memory than speedycgi to provide the same service. I'm guessing that what happened was you ran mod_perl into swap again. You need to adjust MaxClients when your process size changes significantly. I believe that with speedycgi you don't have to lower the MaxClients setting, because it's able to handle a larger number of clients, at least in this test. Maybe what you're seeing is an ability to handle a larger number of requests (as opposed to clients) because of the performance benefit I mentioned above. I don't follow. When not all processes are in use, I think Speedy would handle requests more quickly, which would allow it to handle n requests in less time than mod_perl. Saying it handles more clients implies that the requests are simultaneous. I don't think it can handle more simultaneous requests. Are the speedycgi+Apache processes smaller than the mod_perl processes? If not, the maximum number of concurrent requests you can handle on a given box is going to be the same. The size of the httpds running mod_speedycgi, plus the size of speedycgi perl processes is significantly smaller than the total size of the httpd's running mod_perl. The reason for this is that only a handful of perl processes are required by speedycgi to handle the same load, whereas mod_perl uses a perl interpreter in all of the httpds. I think this is true at lower levels, but not when the number of simultaneous requests gets up to the maximum that the box can handle. At that point, it's a question of how many interpreters can fit in memory. I would expect the size of one Speedy + one httpd to be about the same as one mod_perl/httpd when no memory is shared. With sharing, you'd be able to run more processes. - Perrin
Re: the edge of chaos
- Original Message - From: "Justin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Geoffrey Young" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:55 PM Subject: Re: the edge of chaos Practical experiments (ok - the live site :) convinced me that the well recommended modperl setup of fe/be suffer from failure and much wasted page production when load rises just a little above *maximum sustainable throughput* .. It doesn't take much math to realize that if you continue to try to accept connections faster than you can service them, the machine is going to die, and as soon as you load the machine to the point that you are swapping/paging memory to disk the time to service a request will skyrocket. Tune down MaxClients on both the front and back end httpd's to what the machine can actually handle and bump up the listen queue if you want to try to let the requests connect and wait for a process to handle them. If you aren't happy with the speed the machine can realistically produce, get another one (or more) and let the front end proxy to the other(s) running the backends. Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: getting rid of multiple identical http requests (bad users double-clicking)
- Original Message - From: "Ed Park" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 6:52 PM Subject: getting rid of multiple identical http requests (bad users double-clicking) Does anyone out there have a clean, happy solution to the problem of users jamming on links buttons? Analyzing our access logs, it is clear that it's relatively common for users to click 2,3,4+ times on a link if it doesn't come up right away. This not good for the system for obvious reasons. The best solution is to make the page come up right away... If that isn't possible, try to make at least something show up. If your page consists of a big table the browser may be waiting until the closure to compute the column widths before it can render anything. I can think of a few ways around this, but I was wondering if anyone else had come up with anything. Here are the avenues I'm exploring: 1. Implementing JavaScript disabling on the client side so that links become 'click-once' links. 2. Implement an MD5 hash of the request and store it on the server (e.g. in a MySQL server). When a new request comes in, check the MySQL server to see whether it matches an existing request and disallow as necessary. There might be some sort of timeout mechanism here, e.g. don't allow identical requests within the span of the last 20 seconds. This might be worthwhile to trap duplicate postings, but unless your page requires a vast amount of server work you might as well deliver it as go to this much trouble. Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_perl withscriptsthat contain un-shared memory
Roger Espel Llima [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Jeremy Howard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm the person whose words you're quoting here,
not Jeremy's.
A backend server can realistically handle multiple frontend requests, since
the frontend server must stick around until the data has been delivered
to the client (at least that's my understanding of the lingering-close
issue that was recently discussed at length here).
I won't enter the {Fast,Speedy}-CGI debates, having never played
with these, but the picture you're painting about delivering data to
the clients is just a little bit too bleak.
It's a "hypothetical", and I obviously exaggerated the numbers to show
the advantage of a front/back end architecture for "comparative benchmarks"
like these. As you well know, the relevant issue is the percentage of time
spent generating the content relative to the entire time spent servicing
the request. If you don't like seconds, rescale it to your favorite
time window.
With a frontend/backend mod_perl setup, the frontend server sticks
around for a second or two as part of the lingering_close routine,
but it doesn't have to wait for the client to finish reading all the
data. Fortunately enough, spoonfeeding data to slow clients is
handled by the OS kernel.
Right- relative to the time it takes the backend to actually
create and deliver the content to the frontend, a second or
two can be an eternity.
Best.
--
Joe Schaefer
