HI,
I like the idea of splitting the scoreboard
like Bill Stoddard mentioned. There should be
a component that is for the MPM to do
process/application management and
a component for mod_status.
On top of this, I was wondering if
it would be an idea to create a seperate
ap_hook for this?? Then
can you give a short description of this allocator?
-dean
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Greg Ames wrote:
are you thinking about an atomic push/pop block allocator? I'll be
happy to help out if so, especially with the machine instruction level
stuff.
On Saturday, April 21, 2001, at 12:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Chuck Murcko wrote:
So did the discussion then stall on the best tool(s)?
Yeah, and implementation and how to handle it and repository
locations, etc... :)
Back then we weren't that clear, IIRC, on how to do things like
Comment's interspersed...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Greg Ames
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 1:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mod_include performance numbers
"Jeffrey A. Stuart" wrote:
I'd like to amen that... I'm
Bill Stoddard wrote:
AFAIK, Paul hit this problem because of idle_server_maintenance and/or
MaxRequestsPerChild - true? If that's really the extent of it, I
believe there's a pretty easy solution.
If you buy that, then why doesn't that solution work for
MaxRequestsPerChild as
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Greg Ames wrote:
Bill Stoddard wrote:
AFAIK, Paul hit this problem because of idle_server_maintenance and/or
MaxRequestsPerChild - true? If that's really the extent of it, I
believe there's a pretty easy solution.
If you buy that, then why doesn't that
Hello,
Just wanted to add to Jeff's comments about what folks running Apache want.
Here's some background.
I work at Tellme--we run a consumer voice portal (1-800-555-TELL) and also
host voice services for enterprise customers. Our ENTIRE INFRASTRUCTURE is
HTTP based. When a user calls into our
OK, it's committed...works swell for me. Paul?
Um... This is an incredibly dangerous change. This makes Apache shutdown
one threaded process at a time. I think we have all downloaded tarballs
that are hundreds of megs, which can take a few hours to download. What
happens if
Good stuff, Thanks!
Bill
Hello,
Just wanted to add to Jeff's comments about what folks running Apache want.
Here's some background.
I work at Tellme--we run a consumer voice portal (1-800-555-TELL) and also
host voice services for enterprise customers. Our ENTIRE INFRASTRUCTURE is
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 10:34 PM
FirstBill saiz
I agree with you Ryan. Haven't thought about this much over the weekend, but my
inclination is that
a combination of strategies is required. First, split the scoreboard into two, one
for process
management
I agree with you Ryan. Haven't thought about this much over the weekend, but my
inclination is
that
a combination of strategies is required. First, split the scoreboard into two,
one for process
management and one for status. The process management scoreboard will be small
enough
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Greg Ames wrote:
Bill Stoddard wrote:
AFAIK, Paul hit this problem because of idle_server_maintenance and/or
MaxRequestsPerChild - true? If that's really the extent of it, I
believe there's a pretty easy solution.
Greg Ames wrote:
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Show us some code :-)
OK, it's committed...works swell for me. Paul?
uhhh, Paul, it's not so swell after all, so don't bother with it on my
account.
btw, any progress on getting the signalling/shutdown stuff working
better?
Thanks,
Greg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um... This is an incredibly dangerous change. This makes Apache shutdown
one threaded process at a time. I think we have all downloaded tarballs
that are hundreds of megs, which can take a few hours to download. What
happens if while my server is
It doesn't affect any operator initiated shutdown/restart commands, only
internal algorithmically generated things like
perform_idle_server_maintenance and MaxRequestsPerChild.
Then it doesn't solve the problem that Paul was talking about.
AFAIK, the specific problem that Paul had
PGP message
16 matches
Mail list logo
