Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers

2001-01-22 Thread Balazs Rauznitz
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

Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers

2001-01-18 Thread Jayme Frye
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

killing of greater than MaxSpareServers

2001-01-17 Thread ___cliff rayman___
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

Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers

2001-01-17 Thread Perrin Harkins
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

Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers

2001-01-17 Thread ___cliff rayman___
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

Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers

2001-01-17 Thread Perrin Harkins
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

Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers

2001-01-17 Thread ___cliff rayman___
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

Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers

2001-01-17 Thread Balazs Rauznitz
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

Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers

2001-01-17 Thread ___cliff rayman___
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