Oh Cool (and thanks for the inputs). Somebody here was suggesting that we should get the module approved by the SPEC - so that it'll be more useful :)..
-Madhu >-----Original Message----- >From: Greg Ames [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:04 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: SPEC / mod_specweb99.c > > >MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote: >> Hi, >> Does anybody know if the mod_specweb99.c been 'blessed' >by the SPEC >> committee ?..I mean, have they acknowledged that the module >acts in a SPEC >> compliant manner? > >No, they have not blessed it. > >> I had a doubt regarding executing CGI scripts in SPECweb99 - >somebody here >> told me that the SPEC mandates the web server to fork a >child process to >> execute a CGI script - is that so ?. > >Yes, that is so. You need to configure a SPEC CGI independently from >mod_specweb99. Fortunately this is only a tiny fraction of >the workload. > >In spite of the low frequency of CGI requests, I've seen >multiple zombie CGI >processes hanging around quite often. Bill S. had a fix for >apr/unix/pools.c::free_proc_chain not too long ago that might >help with the >zombies. Switching to a compiled CGI as Dave suggested >wouldn't hurt either. > >Greg >
