Hi there,
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Mark Maunder wrote:
> is anyone using the 2.6 kernel on live servers yet?
Nearly did it, then I ran into problems with a VPN which only happen
with the 2.6 kernel. Given the networking nature of the problems I
thought better of it. This was with 2.6.x where x <= 1
Thanks. I think the idea of sending a useless signal is the best so far.
I'm also going to upgrade my kernel and see if I can get more meaningful
output from ps.
btw, is anyone using the 2.6 kernel on live servers yet?
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 12:50, Render Web wrote:
> Mark Maunder wrote:
> > I've
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 29 Feb 2004,
Mark Maunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm assuming the httpd processes are in swap, because according to
> the ps docs, processes surrounded by [square brackets] are swapped
> out. But I think ps might be lying because as soon as I start
> apache, the p
> "Mark" == Mark Maunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> Is there a way to force apache to stay in memory. My linux box swaps
Mark> children out (shown in brackets in ps) during long periods of low
Mark> activity, and swapping them back in is causing latency for my users.
Post a URL for you
Mark Maunder wrote:
Is there a way to force apache to stay in memory. My linux box swaps
children out (shown in brackets in ps) during long periods of low
activity, and swapping them back in is causing latency for my users.
Take a look at these threads, which discuss this exact topic:
http://marc.t
Mark Maunder wrote:
Definitely an option. I could blast the server with ap every 10 minutes.
But it's not too elegant in that not all apache children are guaranteed
to serve requests, so some will stay in swap.
Why not send them a meaningless signal? It'd force the kernel to bring
them back to 'ha
Hello again,
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Mark Maunder wrote:
> I could blast the server with ap every 10 minutes.
Or every 10 seconds.
> But it's not too elegant in that not all apache children are guaranteed
> to serve requests, so some will stay in swap.
They will if you make them die after serving
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 12:43, Ged Haywood wrote:
> If I read you right, this only happens when your Apache processes are
> inactive for some time. So why not set up a process which keeps them
> active, like a kind of watchdog? It would be very simple using LWP or
> something like that.
Definite
Mark Maunder wrote:
I've considered it, but I have a few other processes that I'd like to
swap out when they're inactive to increase disk cache etc. btw, I've
managed to lock mysql into memory on the server using the memlock config
option which uses mlockall. I've googled myself to death but can't
Hello again,
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Mark Maunder wrote:
> > Don't mount the swap space?
> I've considered it, but I have a few other processes that I'd like to
> swap out
If I read you right, this only happens when your Apache processes are
inactive for some time. So why not set up a process whi
I've considered it, but I have a few other processes that I'd like to
swap out when they're inactive to increase disk cache etc. btw, I've
managed to lock mysql into memory on the server using the memlock config
option which uses mlockall. I've googled myself to death but can't find
anything about
Hi there,
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Mark Maunder wrote:
> Is there a way to force apache to stay in memory.
Don't mount the swap space?
73,
Ged.
--
Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/mail
12 matches
Mail list logo
