Fred Tyler wrote:
> and then no further requests
> could be made from that child because it couldn't even allocate enough
> memory to start a new request (even for a static file).
You really shouldn't be serving static files from a mod_perl enabled apache. Not
only will it mean you need more mem
On 7/23/06, Fred Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm having a serious problem with Apache::Resource not killing
children and ending up with all of the children in a hung state at the
memory limit (Linux 2.6, mod_perl 1.29, Apache 1.33).
Wow, I finally figured out what was causing this. It turn
On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 15:44 -0700, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> > Acutally, I am already using Apache::SizeLimit. I just read in a few
> > places that it's a good idea use both -- Apache::SizeLimit to catch
> > normal growth and Apache::Resource for emergencies.
> Ehhh... Don't think I've read that
> Acutally, I am already using Apache::SizeLimit. I just read in a few
> places that it's a good idea use both -- Apache::SizeLimit to catch
> normal growth and Apache::Resource for emergencies.
Ehhh... Don't think I've read that anywhere... I don't see how it could hurt
though.
Which one is set
> I'm having a serious problem with Apache::Resource not killing
> children and ending up with all of the children in a hung state at the
> memory limit (Linux 2.6, mod_perl 1.29, Apache 1.33).
For what it's worth you might want to take a look at Apache::SizeLimit
which was recently upgraded and
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Fred Tyler wrote:
I'm having a serious problem with Apache::Resource not killing
children and ending up with all of the children in a hung state at the
memory limit (Linux 2.6, mod_perl 1.29, Apache 1.33).
For what it's worth you might want to take a look at Apache::SizeLi
