On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 07:41:02PM -0700, Christopher B. Liebman wrote:
Bingo! ***much*** better. It will be intresting to get some feedback
from someone who is running an active web server with apache/cygwin.
Would you mind to check out the latest from CVS and test it again?
Thomas Pfaff
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 04:17:06PM -0700, Christopher B. Liebman wrote:
Ok, after some investigation I am starting to think that the issue is with
the behavior of accept(). When the apache main forks off its pool of worker
procs, each one calls accept() on the socket file descriptor. What I
Corinna Vinschen schrieb:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 04:17:06PM -0700, Christopher B. Liebman wrote:
Ok, after some investigation I am starting to think that the issue is with
the behavior of accept(). When the apache main forks off its pool of worker
procs, each one calls accept() on the
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 07:57:32PM +0200, Stipe Tolj wrote:
Corinna Vinschen schrieb:
I've just applied a patch to Cygwin which hopefully solves that problem.
Please try out the next developers snapshot.
great, thanks a lot Corinna! I guess this is the nightly snapshot,
right?
Yes.
: Monday, June 02, 2003 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Problem with accept?!! (was: Re: apache cygwin package hangs
when MaxRequestsPerChild reached!)
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 07:57:32PM +0200, Stipe Tolj wrote:
Corinna Vinschen schrieb:
I've just applied a patch to Cygwin which hopefully solves
Subject: Re: Problem with accept?!! (was: Re: apache cygwin package hangs
when MaxRequestsPerChild reached!)
Thanks,
I'll do a CVS update after work and give it a try! I think that this
may
also solve others issues with apache not serving for more than a day...
cross your fingers
Christopher B. Liebman wrote:
Bingo! ***much*** better. It will be intresting to get some feedback
from someone who is running an active web server with apache/cygwin.
I do, but it's on top of Cygin 1.3.10-2 because of that damn reason.
If I can confirm the fix, I'll upgrade to latest
Christopher B. Liebman wrote:
Bingo! ***much*** better. It will be intresting to get some feedback
from someone who is running an active web server with apache/cygwin.
I definelty can *confirm* this has fixed the *long outstanding apache
hanging problem* :)
puh, I thought realy
BTW,
I guess this is a good reason for having Cygwin 1.3.22-2 (or .23-1)
released?!
I'd like to update then the whole Apache packages, including a fresh
php build with additional php modules, etc.
Stipe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Wapme
Stipe schrieb:
Gerrit, this may be also solving our mysql problems?! At least I had
mysql running on cygwin 1.3.10-2 (which was the same old version for
my apache server). I could bet a dozen of guiness that we'll get mysql
to run with this fix too ;)
I hope so too. Well it crashed
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 11:47:55AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Another problem with the latest snapshots was that I cannot build perl
with it,
I wonder if it wouldn't be more productive to write *why* it fails to
build...
so upgrading cygwin-1.3.22 with only this one bug fixed would
be
Corinna schrieb:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 11:47:55AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Another problem with the latest snapshots was that I cannot build perl
with it,
I wonder if it wouldn't be more productive to write *why* it fails to
build...
I don't know why it fails. I just see that the
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 12:45:48PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Corinna schrieb:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 11:47:55AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Another problem with the latest snapshots was that I cannot build perl
with it,
I wonder if it wouldn't be more productive to write *why*
Corinna schrieb:
I haven't debugged it yet. I'll need to debug it, I know.
Hint:
Be careful to strictly separate your building environment in two parts,
[...]
Thanks, I already had trouble with this issue, 'entry point not
found...'. Well, at least the most applications built with an
Ok, after some investigation I am starting to think that the issue is with
the behavior of accept(). When the apache main forks off its pool of worker
procs, each one calls accept() on the socket file descriptor. What I have
found is that when the first process in the pool exits (usually due to
Hi Christopher,
Christopher B. Liebman schrieb:
Ok, after some investigation I am starting to think that the issue is with
the behavior of accept(). When the apache main forks off its pool of worker
procs, each one calls accept() on the socket file descriptor. What I have
found is that
16 matches
Mail list logo
