You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2009/04/08 17:00:37 UTC
Re: Poor performance with new apr_pool
On Mar 30, 2009, at 3:02 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Yep... I will try to recreate on Ubuntu in addition to the
> OS X testing.
>
OK.... This seems unrelated (maybe) to the new pool...
The cause for the slowdown was due to httpd constantly dumping
core. Looking at the cores, I see
(gdb) where
#0 0x9035eeda in read$UNIX2003 ()
#1 0x000e13cc in ap_event_pod_check (pod=0x34ad10) at pod.c:56
#2 0x000de1d7 in child_main (child_num_arg=2) at event.c:1797
#3 0x000de388 in make_child (s=0x319120, slot=2) at event.c:1883
#4 0x000de9eb in perform_idle_server_maintenance () at event.c:2096
#5 0x000dec7a in server_main_loop (remaining_children_to_start=0) at
event.c:2200
#6 0x000dee75 in event_run (_pconf=0x300590, plog=0x315fa0,
s=0x319120) at event.c:2258
#7 0x00015865 in ap_run_mpm (pconf=0x300590, plog=0x315fa0,
s=0x319120) at mpm_common.c:88
#8 0x0000acd8 in main (argc=7, argv=0xbffff36c) at main.c:781
This seems to only happen in Darwin. Looking into other
1.4/2.0 related changes that would affect this
Re: Poor performance with new apr_pool
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>.
On Apr 9, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 8:33 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 30, 2009, at 3:02 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> Yep... I will try to recreate on Ubuntu in addition to the
>>> OS X testing.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK.... This seems unrelated (maybe) to the new pool...
>>>
>>> The cause for the slowdown was due to httpd constantly dumping
>>> core. Looking at the cores, I see
>>>
>>> (gdb) where
>>> #0 0x9035eeda in read$UNIX2003 ()
>>>
>>> read() is a pretty safe place to sit; what about other threads?
>>>
>>
>> That's the one that dumped...
> You sure about that?
>
Yep. Which is what's weird.
Re: Poor performance with new apr_pool
Posted by Bill Stoddard <wg...@gmail.com>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Apr 8, 2009, at 8:33 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 30, 2009, at 3:02 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> Yep... I will try to recreate on Ubuntu in addition to the
>> OS X testing.
>>
>>
>> OK.... This seems unrelated (maybe) to the new pool...
>>
>> The cause for the slowdown was due to httpd constantly dumping
>> core. Looking at the cores, I see
>>
>> (gdb) where
>> #0 0x9035eeda in read$UNIX2003 ()
>>
>> read() is a pretty safe place to sit; what about other threads?
>>
>
> That's the one that dumped...
You sure about that?
Bill
Re: Poor performance with new apr_pool
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Apr 8, 2009, at 8:33 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Mar 30, 2009, at 3:02 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Yep... I will try to recreate on Ubuntu in addition to the
> OS X testing.
>
>
> OK.... This seems unrelated (maybe) to the new pool...
>
> The cause for the slowdown was due to httpd constantly dumping
> core. Looking at the cores, I see
>
> (gdb) where
> #0 0x9035eeda in read$UNIX2003 ()
>
> read() is a pretty safe place to sit; what about other threads?
>
That's the one that dumped...
Re: Poor performance with new apr_pool
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 30, 2009, at 3:02 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> Yep... I will try to recreate on Ubuntu in addition to the
>> OS X testing.
>>
>>
> OK.... This seems unrelated (maybe) to the new pool...
>
> The cause for the slowdown was due to httpd constantly dumping
> core. Looking at the cores, I see
>
> (gdb) where
> #0 0x9035eeda in read$UNIX2003 ()
read() is a pretty safe place to sit; what about other threads?