On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:07:51PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 11/18/2011 01:19, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:00:57AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> >> On 11/17/2011 02:57, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > It's not catching there though:
> >
> > Reading symbols from /
On 11/18/2011 01:19, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:00:57AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 11/17/2011 02:57, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> It's not catching there though:
>
> Reading symbols from /libexec/ld-elf.so.1...done.
> Loaded symbols for /libexec/ld-elf.so.1
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:00:57AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 11/17/2011 02:57, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >> > It's not catching there though:
> >> >
> >> > Reading symbols from /libexec/ld-elf.so.1...done.
> >> > Loaded symbols for /libexec/ld-elf.so.1
> >> > 0x28183b2d in accept () at accept.
On 11/17/2011 02:57, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> > It's not catching there though:
>> >
>> > Reading symbols from /libexec/ld-elf.so.1...done.
>> > Loaded symbols for /libexec/ld-elf.so.1
>> > 0x28183b2d in accept () at accept.S:3
>> > 3 RSYSCALL(accept)
>> > (gdb) c
>> > Continuing.
>> > no thread
On 17.11.2011 14:18, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:12:10AM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:59:06PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
On 11/16/2011 23:49, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:46:27PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
On 11/15/2011 02:0
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
wrote:
> I don't use worker MPM on any of our boxes, we actually use ITK MPM
> solely because of the hosting nature of what we do. I've actually never
> seen worker MPM in use on any *IX machine I've been on or administrated,
> only prefork. The
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 01:26:49AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 11/17/2011 00:12, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:59:06PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> >> On 11/16/2011 23:49, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:46:27PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 1
Hello, Kostik.
You wrote 17 ноября 2011 г., 11:49:09:
> High-tech solution is to link with libunwind and add code into sigprocmask()
> to gather the stacks. But I expect that gdb attach is enough.
Proper high-tech solution is to use DTrace. It is very food in such
things.
--
// Black Lion AKA
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:12:10AM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:59:06PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 11/16/2011 23:49, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:46:27PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> > >> On 11/15/2011 02:09, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > >
On 11/17/2011 00:12, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:59:06PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 11/16/2011 23:49, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:46:27PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
On 11/15/2011 02:09, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1
On 11/17/2011 00:30, Daniil Cherednik wrote:
> I am sorry for repeat (I wrote about it), but what do you think about
> this hack:
Danill, thanks, and sorry if I wasn't clear before, but the problem
we're seeing has a very clear pattern:
74195 httpd0.13 CALL sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,0,0xbfbf
On 17.11.2011 11:49, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:46:27PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
On 11/15/2011 02:09, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:07:45AM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:51:35PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
On 11/14/2011 12:3
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:59:06PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 11/16/2011 23:49, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:46:27PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> >> On 11/15/2011 02:09, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:07:45AM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>
On 11/16/2011 23:49, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:46:27PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 02:09, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:07:45AM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:51:35PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 1
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:46:27PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 02:09, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:07:45AM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:51:35PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> >>> On 11/14/2011 12:31, Doug Barton wrote:
> Tryi
On 11/15/2011 02:09, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:07:45AM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:51:35PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2011 12:31, Doug Barton wrote:
Trying to track down a load problem we're seeing on 8.2-RELEASE-p4 i386
>>>
We know about it. But unfortunately we can`t use php-fpm or other fcgi
solution. We must use .htaccess with php directive.
On 15.11.2011 15:34, Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Daniil Cherednik"
I am not trying to start a holy war, but I really need to increase
per
- Original Message -
From: "Daniil Cherednik"
I am not trying to start a holy war, but I really need to increase
performance of our hosting in FreeBSD.
Is there something you need from apache that means you
cant use nginx for instead?
nginx + php-fpm is much higher performing, we sw
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:07:45AM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:51:35PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 11/14/2011 12:31, Doug Barton wrote:
> > > Trying to track down a load problem we're seeing on 8.2-RELEASE-p4 i386
> > > in a busy web hosting environment I came ac
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:51:35PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 11/14/2011 12:31, Doug Barton wrote:
> > Trying to track down a load problem we're seeing on 8.2-RELEASE-p4 i386
> > in a busy web hosting environment I came across the following post:
> >
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/free
Daniil Cherednik wrote:
After all that I was trying to compare perfomance of return from fork()
in Linux and FreeBSD (see
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2011-October/036705.html)
and fork() in FreeBSD was slower.
our fork() differs from linux fork() in handling parent and ch
Hi.
I was trying to understand a cause for this problem, and made an ugly hack:
diff -u ./rtld_lock.c.orig ./rtld_lock.c
--- ./rtld_lock.c.orig 2011-11-15 07:56:14.0 +
+++ ./rtld_lock.c 2011-11-15 07:54:42.0 +
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@
sigset_t tmp_oldsigmask;
for ( ; ; ) {
- si
Hi.
I was trying to understand a cause for this problem, and made an ugly hack:
diff -u ./rtld_lock.c.orig ./rtld_lock.c
--- ./rtld_lock.c.orig 2011-11-15 07:56:14.0 +
+++ ./rtld_lock.c 2011-11-15 07:54:42.0 +
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@
sigset_t tmp_oldsigmask;
for ( ; ; ) {
- si
On 11/14/2011 12:56, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, November 14, 2011 3:31:43 pm Doug Barton wrote:
>> Trying to track down a load problem we're seeing on 8.2-RELEASE-p4 i386
>> in a busy web hosting environment I came across the following post:
>>
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-qu
On Monday, November 14, 2011 3:31:43 pm Doug Barton wrote:
> Trying to track down a load problem we're seeing on 8.2-RELEASE-p4 i386
> in a busy web hosting environment I came across the following post:
>
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2011-
October/234520.html
>
> That ba
On 11/14/2011 12:31, Doug Barton wrote:
> Trying to track down a load problem we're seeing on 8.2-RELEASE-p4 i386
> in a busy web hosting environment I came across the following post:
>
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2011-October/234520.html
>
> That basically describes wh
Trying to track down a load problem we're seeing on 8.2-RELEASE-p4 i386
in a busy web hosting environment I came across the following post:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2011-October/234520.html
That basically describes what we're seeing as well, including the
"doesn't happ
27 matches
Mail list logo
