On Sunday 12 June 2005 22:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Torsten,
>
> I put this:
>
> PerlModule Perl::AfterFork
> PerlInitHandler Perl::AfterFork::reinit
>
> In the config and tested it - I get this error message:
> [Sun Jun 12 22:36:46 2005] [error] Usage: Perl::AfterFork::reinit().\n
> [Sun J
???
Cheers
Adnreas
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Juni 2005 09:19
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; modperl@perl.apache.org
Betreff: AW: AW: Apache::SizeLimit ( mp1 and mp2 )-> I think there is a logical
error in the code ...
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Torsten Foertsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Mai 2005 11:19
> An: modperl@perl.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Apache::SizeLimit ( mp1 and mp2 )-> I think there is a
> logical error in the code ...
>
> On T
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Mai 2005 11:19
> An: modperl@perl.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Apache::SizeLimit ( mp1 and mp2 )-> I think there is a logical
> error in the code ...
>
> On Tuesday 24 May 2005 09:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I claim, the
CTED]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Mai 2005 11:19
An: modperl@perl.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Apache::SizeLimit ( mp1 and mp2 )-> I think there is a logical
error in the code ...
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 09:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I claim, the "main process " detection does nev
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 2:36 pm, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
httpd -X
What would be appropriate behavior in that case? Report the size but not kill
the process?
That sounds good to me. I wasn't really following this thread. I just
saw something I could answe
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 2:36 pm, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> httpd -X
What would be appropriate behavior in that case? Report the size but not kill
the process?
- Perrin
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 3:39 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I claim, the "main process " detection does never work and does not make
sense.
As other have pointed out, it does work, but apparently has issues on some
platforms for some people. However, I can't see a
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 3:39 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I claim, the "main process " detection does never work and does not make
> sense.
As other have pointed out, it does work, but apparently has issues on some
platforms for some people. However, I can't see any reason why the main
process
ink there is a logical
error in the code ...
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 11:48, Marc Gràcia wrote:
> > But there is a problem with Perls getppid() implementation. Modern
> > Perls issue the syscall only once and cache the result. Maybe you
> > somehow hit that. Normally the cache is
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 11:48, Marc Gràcia wrote:
> > But there is a problem with Perls getppid() implementation. Modern Perls
> > issue the syscall only once and cache the result. Maybe you somehow hit
> > that. Normally the cache is invalidated when Perl forks, but Apache does
> > its own fork. Th
El dt 24 de 05 del 2005 a les 11:19 +0200, en/na Torsten Foertsch va escriure:
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 09:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I claim, the "main process " detection does never work and does not make
> sense. Why? Not even when the apache is started on boot through init, the
> PPID
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 09:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I claim, the "main process " detection does never work and does not make
> sense. Why? Not even when the apache is started on boot through init, the
> PPID will be 1, but some shell / rc pid. You can only find the PPID in the
> PID file that
Title: Nachricht
Hi folks,
recently I deployed Apache::SizeLimit on a mod_perl 1.29
machine running SLES 9, since we had - ehm - runaway
processes
After a while I stumbled across messages like
this:
/var/web/logs/error_log_modperl.3:[Tue May 17 20:45:04 2005]
(21886) Apache::Size
14 matches
Mail list logo
