On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Thomas Åkesson wrote:
> On 14 nov 2012, at 01:44, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Philip Martin wrote on Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 21:30:00 +:
> >> Perhaps we could start up a separate hook script process before
> >> allocating the large FSFS cache and then delegate the f
On 14 nov 2012, at 01:44, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Philip Martin wrote on Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 21:30:00 +:
>> Perhaps we could start up a separate hook script process before
>> allocating the large FSFS cache and then delegate the fork/exec to that
>> smaller process?
>
> If so, let's have that
Peter Samuelson writes:
> [Philip Martin]
>> If I configure a server with an FSFS cache that uses about 50% of
>> available memory and then I use the server so the cache is in use I
>> find that hook scripts fail to run because the fork/exec cannot
>> allocate memory.
>
> You didn't say what OS t
On Nov 15, 2012 9:29 AM, "Peter Samuelson" wrote:
>
>
> [Philip Martin]
> > If I configure a server with an FSFS cache that uses about 50% of
> > available memory and then I use the server so the cache is in use I
> > find that hook scripts fail to run because the fork/exec cannot
> > allocate mem
[Philip Martin]
> If I configure a server with an FSFS cache that uses about 50% of
> available memory and then I use the server so the cache is in use I
> find that hook scripts fail to run because the fork/exec cannot
> allocate memory.
You didn't say what OS this is. It matters. Some are con
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
>...
> Having hooks run in a separate process is complicated. The process
> would need to be multi-threaded, or multi-process, to avoid hooks
> running in serial. stdin/out/err would need to be handled
> somehow. Pipes perhaps? By passing fi
Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps we could start up a separate hook script process before
>> allocating the large FSFS cache and then delegate the fork/exec to that
>> smaller process?
>>
>
> I wonder whether there is a way to pass a different
> cache setting to the sub-process.
I d
This problem is why mod_cgid exists. Been there. Done that. It creates a
daemon early, before threads/mem are allocated. The child CGI processes are
then fast to spawn.
Cheers,
-g
(*) http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_cgid.html
On Nov 13, 2012 6:44 PM, "Daniel Shahaf" wrote:
> Philip Mar
Philip Martin wrote on Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 21:30:00 +:
> Perhaps we could start up a separate hook script process before
> allocating the large FSFS cache and then delegate the fork/exec to that
> smaller process?
If so, let's have that daemon handle all forks we might do, not just
those rela
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> If I configure a server with an FSFS cache that uses about 50% of
> available memory and then I use the server so the cache is in use I find
> that hook scripts fail to run because the fork/exec cannot allocate
> memory. The user sees:
>
I
If I configure a server with an FSFS cache that uses about 50% of
available memory and then I use the server so the cache is in use I find
that hook scripts fail to run because the fork/exec cannot allocate
memory. The user sees:
$ svn mkdir -mm http://localhost:/obj/repo/A
svn: E165002: Faile
11 matches
Mail list logo
