Re: Static vs. DSO on Linux specifically
Sam Tregar No, the last Redhat Apache/mod_perl I used was in 6.2. I didn't file a Sam Tregar bug about it because after looking around it appeared that it was a well Sam Tregar known problem. After that I started compiling Apache/mod_perl static and Sam Tregar left the seg-faults behind. PMFJI :] Back in RH 6.2 I would hazard that the segfault was more related to Perl being set to uselargefiles and Apache NOT being set. This only became visible when one tried to build mod_perl as a DSO. Building as STATIC caused Apache to be rebuilt using the now current uselargefiles setting. Cheers :) -Sx-
Re: Static vs. DSO on Linux specifically
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, WC -Sx- Jones wrote: Back in RH 6.2 I would hazard that the segfault was more related to Perl being set to uselargefiles and Apache NOT being set. This only became visible when one tried to build mod_perl as a DSO. Building as STATIC caused Apache to be rebuilt using the now current uselargefiles setting. I don't think so. Rebuilding Apache/mod_perl static with the exact same Perl that shipped with Redhat 6.2 solved the segfaults. Perhaps it is a problem in Perl, I wouldn't know, but I guarantee it wasn't a result of using a different Perl. -sam
Re: Static vs. DSO on Linux specifically
-Sx- said Building as STATIC caused Apache to be rebuilt using the now current uselargefiles setting. Sam Tregar said I don't think so. Rebuilding Apache/mod_perl static with the exact same Perl that shipped with Redhat 6.2 solved the segfaults. :) How is this different from what I said? :) To better clarify - I said that IF you had tried to build the mod_perl as a DSO and the uselargefiles setting is NOT the same between Perl and Apache (IE - both are either uselargefiles or they are both undef) you WILL get a segfault -- even today. Building as STATIC causes the httpd to be completely rebuilt and the mod_perl settings will cause the Apache binary to match the Perl definition ofd use large files. Building mod_perl as static causes other issues as well - like causing Apache --with-layout to forget which layout it is supposed to use... Oh well; -Sx- :]
Re: Static vs. DSO on Linux specifically
Hi!
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:32AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
So, specifically for the Linux environment, what are the downsides of
running mod_perl as a DSO? (Pointers to the FM so I can R it would be
fine.)
Did you take a look at this:
http://perl.apache.org/docs/1.0/guide/install.html#Pros_and_Cons_of_Building_mod_perl_as_DSO
?
--
#!/usr/bin/perlhttp://domm.zsi.at
for(ref(bless[],just'another'perl'hacker)){s-:+-$-gprint$_.$/}
Re: Static vs. DSO on Linux specifically
On 22 Jul 2002, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: So, specifically for the Linux environment, what are the downsides of running mod_perl as a DSO? (Pointers to the FM so I can R it would be fine.) Segmentation faults, pure and simple. The Apache/mod_perl that ships with Redhat, and I assume other DSO Apache/mod_perl setups, is unstable. Here's one place I've seen this mentioned: http://masonhq.com/docs/faq/#why_am_i_getting_segmentation_fa -sam
Re: Static vs. DSO on Linux specifically
Hi David, On 22 Jul 2002, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: But Redhat ships it as a DSO. Debian also, but I think that is only for simplicity. It would be 'expensive' to produce static versions of apache with mod_perl, or with mod_php or both. On the other hand, I've asked a couple local mod_perl junkies I know how static was better, and they didn't have any good answers for the Intel / Linux environment (though they definitely knew reasons for the Windows environment). The reason for me was 'too many open file handles'. Every http daemon has a file handle for every DSO module, moreover a file handle for every log file. After sometime I started to have that error and found static building the best solution for my problem. IIRC, DSO is still marked as experimental in apache source. Last, but not least, conf files look better :) Ciao, Valerio Valerio Paolini, http://130.136.3.200/~paolini -- what is open-source about? Learn, and then give back
Re: Static vs. DSO on Linux specifically
On 22 Jul 2002 10:26:32 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: DD I've seen a lot of comments which seem to me to say that a static DD mod_perl is the only way to go. I've been using mod_perl as DSO for more than one year (or even maybe two) without any problems on FreeBSD/Linux/Intel. My understanding is that there was some problems in the past and there are still some issues on some platforms but Linux/Intel platform is safe. DD But Redhat ships it as a DSO. DD Now, on the one hand, I wouldn't just automatically assume that Redhat DD knew what they were doing. I would not trust RedHat to much to do right thing with Perl. They are know to produce broken mod_perl packages in the past for example. DD [..snip..] -- Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)
RE: Static vs. DSO on Linux specifically
Of course this is an old conversation, but we use mod_perl as a DSO here extensively with no problems. We have servers that have uptimes of almost 1 year (306 days as of today) and were taken down because the servers were moved to a new server room and not because of a problem with the DSO. And we get several thousand hits a day during the school year. It has been my experience that DSO vs. Static is not the issue it once was. Joe -Original Message- From: David Dyer-Bennet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Static vs. DSO on Linux specifically I've seen a lot of comments which seem to me to say that a static mod_perl is the only way to go. But Redhat ships it as a DSO. Now, on the one hand, I wouldn't just automatically assume that Redhat knew what they were doing. On the other hand, I've asked a couple local mod_perl junkies I know how static was better, and they didn't have any good answers for the Intel / Linux environment (though they definitely knew reasons for the Windows environment). (And I know a static setup would use somewhat less memory; but the last memory I bought for this server cost me $16.04 per 128MB, and it's connected to the net over only a 768k DSL line, so I'm not running *hundreds* of server processes; more like *tens*.) What I've found on the web so far makes claims strong enough that I feel my experience contradicts them adequately, and makes few actual *explanations*. So, specifically for the Linux environment, what are the downsides of running mod_perl as a DSO? (Pointers to the FM so I can R it would be fine.) -- David Dyer-Bennet, [EMAIL PROTECTED] / New TMDA anti-spam in test John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/ New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
Re: Static vs. DSO on Linux specifically
Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi! On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:32AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: So, specifically for the Linux environment, what are the downsides of running mod_perl as a DSO? (Pointers to the FM so I can R it would be fine.) Did you take a look at this: http://perl.apache.org/docs/1.0/guide/install.html#Pros_and_Cons_of_Building_mod_perl_as_DSO ? Yes, and it seemed quite inconclusive, whereas some of the discussion I have heard from people makes it sound *important*. And the guide doesn't mention the two issues that people have mentioned on this list in response to my post (file handles and segfaults). -- David Dyer-Bennet, [EMAIL PROTECTED] / New TMDA anti-spam in test John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/ New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
