You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Rob Hartill <ro...@imdb.com> on 1997/07/22 19:21:40 UTC

To starve or not to starve (Starving sockets bug) (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:16:47 +0600
From: "Gerald D. Anderson" <ga...@voyager.netcomi.com>
To: apache-bugs@apache.org
Subject: To starve or not to starve (Starving sockets bug)

Hey folks,

  Had kind of a quick question.  We are currently running apache on PPro 200s 
runing Linux 2.0.(29,30).  We have between 300-700 virtual sites per machine 
(34 machines).  Problem is that we are seeing a problem very similar to the 
starving sockets issue (PR#467), however when I examine the src/conf.h the 
serialized accept parm. is defined by default for Linux.  My question is, that 
if serialized accept is defined is that a DEFINATE that we are not seeing the 
exact same problem( which sounds the case to me), or is there some way we 
could still be seeing the same starving sockets issue.  The symptom is servers 
seeming to randomly quit servicing a port.

If I can be of any other assistance, please let me know.  Otherwise thanks!

Gerald Anderson
Sys Admin.
Netcom Interactive
(972)481-2972
 



Re: To starve or not to starve (Starving sockets bug) (fwd)

Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>.
In addition to what Dean said, how many Listen directives are you using?
Most servers should be able to get by without any.

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:16:47 +0600
> From: "Gerald D. Anderson" <ga...@voyager.netcomi.com>
> To: apache-bugs@apache.org
> Subject: To starve or not to starve (Starving sockets bug)
> 
> Hey folks,
> 
>   Had kind of a quick question.  We are currently running apache on PPro 200s 
> runing Linux 2.0.(29,30).  We have between 300-700 virtual sites per machine 
> (34 machines).  Problem is that we are seeing a problem very similar to the 
> starving sockets issue (PR#467), however when I examine the src/conf.h the 
> serialized accept parm. is defined by default for Linux.  My question is, that 
> if serialized accept is defined is that a DEFINATE that we are not seeing the 
> exact same problem( which sounds the case to me), or is there some way we 
> could still be seeing the same starving sockets issue.  The symptom is servers 
> seeming to randomly quit servicing a port.
> 
> If I can be of any other assistance, please let me know.  Otherwise thanks!
> 
> Gerald Anderson
> Sys Admin.
> Netcom Interactive
> (972)481-2972
>  
> 
> 


Re: To starve or not to starve (Starving sockets bug) (fwd)

Posted by Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>.
Are any of your vhosts extremely busy?  Is the server at max CPU usage? 
You should open a PR at <http://www.apache.org/bugdb.cgi>. 

Dean

On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Rob Hartill wrote:

> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:16:47 +0600
> From: "Gerald D. Anderson" <ga...@voyager.netcomi.com>
> To: apache-bugs@apache.org
> Subject: To starve or not to starve (Starving sockets bug)
> 
> Hey folks,
> 
>   Had kind of a quick question.  We are currently running apache on PPro 200s 
> runing Linux 2.0.(29,30).  We have between 300-700 virtual sites per machine 
> (34 machines).  Problem is that we are seeing a problem very similar to the 
> starving sockets issue (PR#467), however when I examine the src/conf.h the 
> serialized accept parm. is defined by default for Linux.  My question is, that 
> if serialized accept is defined is that a DEFINATE that we are not seeing the 
> exact same problem( which sounds the case to me), or is there some way we 
> could still be seeing the same starving sockets issue.  The symptom is servers 
> seeming to randomly quit servicing a port.
> 
> If I can be of any other assistance, please let me know.  Otherwise thanks!
> 
> Gerald Anderson
> Sys Admin.
> Netcom Interactive
> (972)481-2972
>  
> 
> 
>