Re: [Pre-ITP] httpd-2.0.53-0.3

["Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>]

Stipe Tolj wrote:
> Hi Max,
>
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>
> > Preview packages of httpd-2.0.53-0.3 are available at:
> >
> > http://www-stud.robinson.cam.ac.uk/~mob22/cygwin/
> > (setup.exe installable site)
> >
> > Any comments welcome.
>
> first comments on a real-life long-term runtime test I do with the version 
> you
> offered:

Thanks!

...

> which means, CPU cycles at arround 100%. But that was the same for 
> apache-1.3
> when bringing to excessive load. This is cygwin layer specifics I guess. 
> And I
> don't think we will ever reach the half of the performance as Win32 native
> version. But that's ok.

I see 100% load, too, when serving lots of concurrent requests.
Doesn't interfere with interactive use of the machine in most cases, so I 
guess that's OK really, since no one should be using Cygwin for a dedicated 
server anyway.

> The machine has a 1 GB space as RAM. And as you see it's not fully 
> "loaded".
> But I see these in /var/log/apache2/error_log:
>
> $ tail /var/log/apache2/error_log
> [Tue Mar 08 10:34:01 2005] [error] (11)Resource temporarily unavailable: 
> fork:
> Unable to fork new process

...
> obiously we're having problems in fork()ing off new childs to serve.

Interesting. I'm running an ApacheBench run from a linux machine on the same 
LAN, specifying 2 million connections, up to 100 concurrently.

I'm getting some errors relating to all my ports being taken up with 
TIME_WAIT connections, but no other errors.

> I know
> that I have (in early httpd-2.0 stages) introduced cygwin as a prefork MPM
> platform, after the pthread'ed version did not work reliable. Should be 
> give
> pthread MPM another chance here?

I tried once before (around 2.0.48, IIRC) and the results were not good. 
Even under no significant load, many requests failed for no visible reason.

Max.