Re: double mod_perl initialization

[Jonathan Swartz <sw...@pobox.com>]

On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Clinton Gormley wrote:

>
>> If I don't ever plan to use graceful restarts, and I believe that
>> smaller restart times are an unqualified Good, is there any reason  
>> why
>> I shouldn't ALWAYS use a script like the above? And is there any way
>> to avoid PerlModule modules from being loaded twice?
>
> I do something pretty similar. I do the double load on 'start', single
> load on 'restart', and I don't load the app on 'stop' / 'graceful- 
> stop'.

Ok, one more question. Disregarding graceful for the moment - is HUP  
completely reliable with mod_perl at this point, or is there still a  
reason (as there once supposedly was) to do a full server stop and  
start?

I've been doing stop and start reflexively for years. If it's  
unnecessary, I wish I could have those seconds back. :)

Jon

Re: double mod_perl initialization

[cr...@animalhead.com]

Been away from my computer for several days :(
Doesn't look like anyone is going to answer this.

Maybe you missed some of the emails that Clinton
Gormley and I were exchanging a while back.  I've
been using 'sudo apachectl graceful' on apache
2.2.11 and 2.2.13 with mod_perl 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 SVN
for many months now and have not noticed any problems.

Of course you might be using some feature or module
or ??? that my site doesn't, which would cause some
problems.  Fancy SSL use and changing certificates
were mentioned as possibilities.

If you look thru the change logs for the various apache
versions you can see quite a few improvements for
graceful and other restarts (there was one in 2.2.12).

So why not give them a chance, and if you have problems
come back here and tell us?  Or look into them a little
and come back and tell us even more?  And if graceful
restart works OK for you, please send an email to say
that.

The elimination of superstition is an absolute good.
cmac

On Oct 2, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Jonathan Swartz wrote:
>
> On Oct 2, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Jonathan Swartz <sw...@pobox.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> Ok, one more question. Disregarding graceful for the moment - is HUP
>>> completely reliable with mod_perl at this point, or is there  
>>> still a reason
>>> (as there once supposedly was) to do a full server stop and start?
>>
>> The problem, at least in the 1.x series, was that the parent process
>> and the perl interpreter never restart.  It just re-reads the config
>> file and runs through startup again.
>
> Right. Ok, in a *relatively modern Apache/mod_perl 2.x*, is there  
> still a reason to do a full server stop and start?
>
> Thanks
> Jon

Re: double mod_perl initialization

[Jonathan Swartz <sw...@pobox.com>]

On Oct 2, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Jonathan Swartz <sw...@pobox.com>  
> wrote:
>> Ok, one more question. Disregarding graceful for the moment - is HUP
>> completely reliable with mod_perl at this point, or is there still  
>> a reason
>> (as there once supposedly was) to do a full server stop and start?
>
> The problem, at least in the 1.x series, was that the parent process
> and the perl interpreter never restart.  It just re-reads the config
> file and runs through startup again.

Right. Ok, in a *relatively modern Apache/mod_perl 2.x*, is there  
still a reason to do a full server stop and start?

Thanks
Jon

Re: double mod_perl initialization

[Perrin Harkins <ph...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Jonathan Swartz <sw...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Ok, one more question. Disregarding graceful for the moment - is HUP
> completely reliable with mod_perl at this point, or is there still a reason
> (as there once supposedly was) to do a full server stop and start?

The problem, at least in the 1.x series, was that the parent process
and the perl interpreter never restart.  It just re-reads the config
file and runs through startup again.

- Perrin