You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2022/05/17 19:25:50 UTC
Named shared memory on macOS Monterey
Anyone else notice that the later version of macOS really prefer
that APR use posix for shared memory for both anon and name-based,
instead of posix for anon and sysv/ipc for name?
The issue seems to be that the kernel params are much lower than
previous versions as well as it being nigh-impossible to reset
those sysctl params on each boot, due to SIP.
Shouldn't we prefer posix over sysv in any case?
Re: Named shared memory on macOS Monterey
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Yep. If I build APR w/ --enable-posix-shm all tests pass just fine. Otherwise I run into errors
where, when creating the shared memory segments, we run out (NOSPC)
> On May 18, 2022, at 8:15 AM, Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is this what breaks the test framework with heartmonitor loaded? I've
> lost the errors, ended up commenting out the mod and re-running
> Makefiles.PL to get unblocked.
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 3:26 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Anyone else notice that the later version of macOS really prefer
>> that APR use posix for shared memory for both anon and name-based,
>> instead of posix for anon and sysv/ipc for name?
>>
>> The issue seems to be that the kernel params are much lower than
>> previous versions as well as it being nigh-impossible to reset
>> those sysctl params on each boot, due to SIP.
>>
>> Shouldn't we prefer posix over sysv in any case?
>
>
>
> --
> Eric Covener
> covener@gmail.com
Re: Named shared memory on macOS Monterey
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Yep. If I build APR w/ --enable-posix-shm all tests pass just fine. Otherwise I run into errors
where, when creating the shared memory segments, we run out (NOSPC)
> On May 18, 2022, at 8:15 AM, Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is this what breaks the test framework with heartmonitor loaded? I've
> lost the errors, ended up commenting out the mod and re-running
> Makefiles.PL to get unblocked.
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 3:26 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Anyone else notice that the later version of macOS really prefer
>> that APR use posix for shared memory for both anon and name-based,
>> instead of posix for anon and sysv/ipc for name?
>>
>> The issue seems to be that the kernel params are much lower than
>> previous versions as well as it being nigh-impossible to reset
>> those sysctl params on each boot, due to SIP.
>>
>> Shouldn't we prefer posix over sysv in any case?
>
>
>
> --
> Eric Covener
> covener@gmail.com
Re: Named shared memory on macOS Monterey
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
Is this what breaks the test framework with heartmonitor loaded? I've
lost the errors, ended up commenting out the mod and re-running
Makefiles.PL to get unblocked.
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 3:26 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> Anyone else notice that the later version of macOS really prefer
> that APR use posix for shared memory for both anon and name-based,
> instead of posix for anon and sysv/ipc for name?
>
> The issue seems to be that the kernel params are much lower than
> previous versions as well as it being nigh-impossible to reset
> those sysctl params on each boot, due to SIP.
>
> Shouldn't we prefer posix over sysv in any case?
--
Eric Covener
covener@gmail.com
Re: Named shared memory on macOS Monterey
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
Is this what breaks the test framework with heartmonitor loaded? I've
lost the errors, ended up commenting out the mod and re-running
Makefiles.PL to get unblocked.
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 3:26 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> Anyone else notice that the later version of macOS really prefer
> that APR use posix for shared memory for both anon and name-based,
> instead of posix for anon and sysv/ipc for name?
>
> The issue seems to be that the kernel params are much lower than
> previous versions as well as it being nigh-impossible to reset
> those sysctl params on each boot, due to SIP.
>
> Shouldn't we prefer posix over sysv in any case?
--
Eric Covener
covener@gmail.com