You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to apache-bugdb@apache.org by Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com> on 1997/12/05 00:50:00 UTC
Re: os-unixware/1499: Server ceases answering requests, remains running silently despite SIGUSR1 or SIGHUP. (fwd)
The following reply was made to PR os-unixware/1499; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>
To: Apache bugs database <ap...@apache.org>
Cc: Subject: Re: os-unixware/1499: Server ceases answering requests, remains running silently despite SIGUSR1 or SIGHUP. (fwd)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:49:10 -0700 (MST)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:25:43 -0800
From: David Alan Pisoni <da...@cnation.com>
To: marc@hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: os-unixware/1499: Server ceases answering requests, remains running silently despite SIGUSR1 or SIGHUP.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Synopsis: Server ceases answering requests, remains running silently=
despite SIGUSR1 or SIGHUP.
>
>State-Changed-From-To: open-analyzed
>State-Changed-By: marc
>State-Changed-When: Wed Dec 3 14:55:36 PST 1997
>State-Changed-Why:
>Do you have all the latest SCO networking patches applied?
>Traditionally, SCO stuff has often had broken networking.
>
No, I just checked on that. I found a recently posted omnibus network=
patch, but was unable to apply it because of a glitch (it wasn't=
recognizing my OS version.) I've contacted SCO about the problem, they=
should respond within the milennium.
>If you can, give it a try using gcc for a compiler. This has sometimes
>resolved such problems.
>
I have had problems with the gcc distributed at the SCO FTP site, and=
haven't had the time (or wherewithal) to go through the lenghty source=
compiliation process required for a good gcc build.
>What happens when it doesn't answer requests? Are connectiosn refused?
>Do you connect and just have nothing answer? =20
The latter occurs. Nice happy TCP 80's appear in the netstat, and the=
client will report "Host Contacted, waiting for reply", but just silence.
=46YI - I attempted to access the web server (when in this state) from the=
same machine (I used telnet), then looked at netstat. The client process=
was in "FIN_WAIT_2", while the server process was in "ESTABLISHED" (I=
believe. I don't remember exactly. I just remember think it very strange."
Ahh, just tried it again, but with a different result (though I made a=
configuration change, explained below.) =20
>What is running in the way of processes when this happens?
I imagine around 15 or so, which I think is what I have startservers set at.
>Anything in the error log?
Nope.
>If SCO has something like ktrace/strace/ptrace/truss/etc.
>to trace system calls, see what the child processes are doing.
>Try using a debugger on the child processes after recompiling
>with -g in EXTRA_CFLAGS to see where they child processes
>are when it hangs.
Before I dive into that, I wanna try the network patches.
Okay, since my last contact, I changed the configuration to disable all the=
"Listen" directives and their cooresponding Vhosts. I had hoped this would=
be a temporary fix. No such luck, though the behaviour seems more consista=
nt.
Now the netstat table is filling up with mostly 'CLOSE_WAIT's and to a=
lesser degree 'ESTABLISHED's, with a small handful of 'FIN_WAIT_1's. The=
server is now actually refusing connections, as opposed to opening them and=
then ignoring them. This looks more and more like a kernel networking=
problem, but I will get back to you after I get the damn patch installed. =
This doesn't cause a general denial of service -- only the web server=
hangs, but I can telnet in to HUP it. Oh, and I forgot to mention, in it's=
present state (after changing the configuration) it now recovers with a HUP=
(where previously it quietly logged the HUP but still did not change its=
abberant behaviour.)
In short, I think that there is a kernel networking problem causing my aches=
now, but I'm not sure if the patch will fix the problem with multiple=
"Listen"s (which was supposedly fixed by USE_FCNTL_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT.) =20
I will get back to you with what I discover.
Thanks for your time,
David Pisoni, System Administrator
CyberNation, LLC -- Web Design for the Next Milennium
david@cnation.com - http://www.cnation.com/
310/656-3450 - 310/656-3453 (fax)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNIc8Aj8po64ro8iIEQJ/fgCgwcjcKxNmhgufpCxNPuijcz5qRz4AniTl
IfnqLq5WuYNtKni8TU7+fghw
=OcMT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----