Hello All, Ok, maybe I'm missing the whole point of this thread, but why is this solution better than using the built-in perl `date` function?
Personally, I think using the system 'date' function provides too many variables [read: problems] when attempting cross-platform continuity. Maybe I have misunderstood the whole point of this thread, but it seems to me that everyone is over-engineering the problem... (i've only been a Perl programmer for like three years, so I still have ton's to learn... hopefully I can learn from this if I'm way off base) Thanks, Jon A On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 8:38 PM, David Booth <da...@dbooth.org> wrote: > Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it with prefork and the problem > still occurred. HOWEVER, I then decided to remove all modules down to a > minimal example, and discovered that the mere inclusion of the following > module: > > use Test::MockObject; > > was causing the segmentation fault after several successful requests, > even though no functions whatsoever were called. Since this appears to > be a bug in Test::MockObject, I reported the bug here: > https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=73723 > > The bug report shows the exact minimal handler code that I used to > reproduce the bug. > > Best wishes, > David > > > On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 17:26 -0500, Daniel Risacher wrote: > > I think I've been bitten by this too, years ago. > > > > I *think* I solved it by switching to mpm_prefork, which was > > unsatisfying, but adequate for my needs. > > > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM, David Booth <da...@dbooth.org> wrote: > > > I tried redirecting stderr to /dev/null and it did not help: > > > system("date >> $f 2> /dev/null"); > > > > > > I am using the worker processing model. Does it work for you (or > anyone > > > else) without causing periodic child process segmentation faults? > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 16:29 -0500, Daniel Risacher wrote: > > >> It's been a while since I looked at doing this, but IIRC it's fairly > > >> dependent on the processing model that Apache is using. Are you > > >> mpm_prefork, or mpm_worker? > > >> > > >> Also, I found it was important to redirect stderr to /dev/null: > > >> > > >> sub play { > > >> system "/usr/bin/xmms -t 2> /dev/null"; > > >> } > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:48 PM, David Booth <da...@dbooth.org> > wrote: > > >> > I am trying to run a shell command from a mod_perl2 response > handler. > > >> > It works properly for some number of HTTP requests, but sometimes it > > >> > fails (somewhat randomly) and I see in my Apache2 error log that > one of > > >> > the Apache2 child processes has died with a segmentation fault. > > >> > For example, /var/log/apache2/error.log shows: > > >> > > > >> > [Tue Jan 03 12:16:10 2012] [notice] child pid 3538 exit signal > Segmentation fault (11) > > >> > > > >> > Is this normal? How does one normally run a shell command from a > > >> > response handler? I do not want to return the command's output to > the > > >> > client. > > >> > > > >> > Here is a trivial example response handler that exhibits this > behavior: > > >> > > > >> > sub handler > > >> > { > > >> > my $r = shift || die; > > >> > my $f = $ENV{DOCUMENT_ROOT} . "/date.txt"; > > >> > system("date >> $f"); > > >> > $r->internal_redirect("/date.txt"); > > >> > return Apache2::Const::OK; > > >> > } > > >> > > > >> > Can anyone provide any guidance? Does this work for you? > > >> > > > >> > Note that you may not notice the problem if you don't carefully > watch > > >> > the Apache2 error log (e.g., with "tail -f > /var/log/apache2/error.log"), > > >> > because Apache2 automatically spawns new children processes as > needed, > > >> > and client (such as Firefox or wget, though not curl) seem to > > >> > automatically re-try the request when it fails, thus giving the > illusion > > >> > of succeeding. > > >> > > > >> > P.S. I have posted about this on perlmonks, but thus far have not > found > > >> > a solution: > > >> > http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=945947 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > David Booth, Ph.D. > > >> > http://dbooth.org/ > > >> > > > >> > Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not > necessarily > > >> > reflect those of his employer. > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > David Booth, Ph.D. > > > http://dbooth.org/ > > > > > > Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not > necessarily > > > reflect those of his employer. > > > > > > > > > -- > David Booth, Ph.D. > http://dbooth.org/ > > Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily > reflect those of his employer. > > -- Best Regards, Jonathan David Please excuse any brevity or typos as this e-mail is most likely sent from a mobile device.
