Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:44 AM, Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
Our solution:
Over at Google, we simply hacked APR to *never* hold on to blocks for
recycling. Essentially, this makes apr_pool_destroy() always free()
the block, and ma
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:44 AM, Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>> Our solution:
>> Over at Google, we simply hacked APR to *never* hold on to blocks for
>> recycling. Essentially, this makes apr_pool_destroy() always free()
>> the block, and makes apr_pool_crea
Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Our solution:
> Over at Google, we simply hacked APR to *never* hold on to blocks for
> recycling. Essentially, this makes apr_pool_destroy() always free()
> the block, and makes apr_pool_create() always call malloc() malloc.
> Poof, all the memory leak went away inst
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the long term, I think we need to question the utility of having
> APR do memory recycling at all. Back in the early 90's, malloc() was
> insanely slow and worth avoiding. In 2008, now that we're running
> apache
Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Mark Phippard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 3) Any reason more Windows users would see this than Linux? Maybe
>> more Windows SVN users use Apache 2.2 than on Linux?
>
> As Erik said, on Windows only the threaded mode is available, t
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Ben Collins-Sussman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2) It seems like many of the people, at least on Windows, can
>> reproduce this problem quickly. Could this just be due to running
>> requests which create/destroy a lot of memory?
>
> Definitely. A single checkout
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Mark Phippard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Ben Collins-Sussman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have interesting memory leak data to share with these two lists
>> (crossposting to both svn and apr dev lists).
>>
>> Ever since we launc
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Erik Huelsmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Windows doesn't support prefork mode; only threaded operation. On
> Linux/Unix the default mode of operation of Apache is some sort of
> creation of disposable processes. The threaded operation in Windows
> doesn't have th
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Mark Phippard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Ben Collins-Sussman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have interesting memory leak data to share with these two lists
>> (crossposting to both svn and apr dev lists).
>>
>> Ever since we launc
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Ben Collins-Sussman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have interesting memory leak data to share with these two lists
> (crossposting to both svn and apr dev lists).
>
> Ever since we launched svn-on-bigtable over at Google (about 2 years
> ago), we've been struggling w
I have interesting memory leak data to share with these two lists
(crossposting to both svn and apr dev lists).
Ever since we launched svn-on-bigtable over at Google (about 2 years
ago), we've been struggling with mysterious memory leaks in apache --
very similar to what users are complaining abou
11 matches
Mail list logo
