Cliff,
Here's the diff of src/main/http_main.c No children are spawned if the
file /tmp/spawn.lock is readable by the root webserver.
I also post yet another watchdog script. It touches the spawnlock file and
kills/shuts down too large apache children.
It uses the /proc filesystem heavily, so
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, ___cliff rayman___ wrote:
i and others have written on the list before, that pushing apache
children into swap causes a rapid downward spiral in performance. I
don't think that MaxClients is the right way to limit the # of
children. i think
here is an excerpt from httpd.h:
/*
* (Unix, OS/2 only)
* Interval, in microseconds, between scoreboard maintenance. During
* each scoreboard maintenance cycle the parent decides if it needs to
* spawn a new child (to meet MinSpareServers requirements), or kill off
* a child (to meet
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, ___cliff rayman___ wrote:
here is an excerpt from httpd.h:
Good reading. Thanks.
It looks as if Apache should find the right number of servers for a steady
load over time, but it could jump up too high for a bit when the load
spike first comes in, pushing into swap if
i and others have written on the list before, that pushing apache
children into swap causes a rapid downward spiral in performance.
I don't think that MaxClients is the right way to limit the # of children. i think
MaxSpareCoreMemory would make more sense. You could
set this to 1K if your
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, ___cliff rayman___ wrote:
i and others have written on the list before, that pushing apache
children into swap causes a rapid downward spiral in performance. I
don't think that MaxClients is the right way to limit the # of
children. i think MaxSpareCoreMemory would make
if you are able to determine how much core memory
is left, you may also be able to determine average apache
process size and variance. then, apache can determine
whether or not to start up any additional children. i'm not
sure how much processor time would be taken to determine
free core
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, ___cliff rayman___ wrote:
i and others have written on the list before, that pushing apache
children into swap causes a rapid downward spiral in performance.
I don't think that MaxClients is the right way to limit the # of children. i think
MaxSpareCoreMemory would
i think its worth posting to the list. it will be forever in the
archives when someone needs it.
thanks!
Balazs Rauznitz wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, ___cliff rayman___ wrote:
i and others have written on the list before, that pushing apache
children into swap causes a rapid downward
