Hi,
Just wanted to update y'all - I traced down the bottleneck to
mod_specweb99.c. The bottleneck is caused by the POST & CAD_GET
transactions. If I eliminate the POST & CAD_GET from the SPECweb99 requests,
I don't see any spiky activity - the CPU usage is steady at 100%.
More comm
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:38:25PM -0800, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
wrote:
> A first guess is that I'm using SysV semaphores, and a semlock can bring
> down the entire httpd to crawl. I'm re-compiling using pthread mutexes
> whenever possible.
Depending on the implementation in you
>-Original Message-
>From: Jeff Trawick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SNIP]
>
>While researching the AIX issue affecting mod_cgid, in which
>kill() would not
>report that a process was gone until up to 1 second after it
>exited*, I
>constructed a test program to expose the delay without u
MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:
Here is the fix for AIX:
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd-2.0/modules/generators/
mod_cgid.c.diff?r1=1.158&r2=1.159
Thanks - I'll try it out right away.
While researching the AIX issue affecting mod_cgid, in which kill() would not
report th
>-Original Message-
>From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SNIP]
>Are you using CGI scripts? (an aside... if so better be
>using mod_cgid rather than mod_cgi with worker). Jeff may
>have already pointed out to you a "feature" in the
>AIX that would keep threads hanging around
MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:
I sure would do that sometime today. The leader probably uses some
apr_atomic stuff - and I'm trying to see if I can use IA64 native code to do
the atomics.
For people at ease with visual stuff, here's the CPU performance that I'm
getting with worker
December 04, 2003 10:52 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Regarding worker MPM and queue_push/pop
>
>
>
>On Dec 4, 2003, at 9:18 AM, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Cliff Woolle
On Dec 4, 2003, at 9:18 AM, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SNIP]
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:
instead of having the worker threads compete for the
incoming connectio
>-Original Message-
>From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SNIP]
>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:
>
>> instead of having the worker threads compete for the
>incoming connections
>> (using ap_queue_pop .. and hence mutex_lock), assign the
>conn
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:
> instead of having the worker threads compete for the incoming connections
> (using ap_queue_pop .. and hence mutex_lock), assign the connection to the
> next free thread on a round-robin basis - if I'm not wrong, zeus does
> som
Hi,
I'm trying to run the SPECweb99 against Apache (on a 1-way box).
I noticed that if I start one server process with a large number of threads
(1000), the server goes into a heavily sleep state (with around 80 % idle
time).
A first guess is that I'm using SysV semaphores, and a semlock
11 matches
Mail list logo
