Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Defunct CGI processes

2005-11-09 Thread Marple Huckleby
Any advice at all with regards to this issue? Any more information that I can provide? steve On 11/7/05, Marple Huckleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Plain text please... > > My apologies, I didn't notice that gmail was sending in HTML. > > > This type of problem is impossible to analyse w

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Defunct CGI processes

2005-11-07 Thread Marple Huckleby
> Plain text please... My apologies, I didn't notice that gmail was sending in HTML. > This type of problem is impossible to analyse without a huge amount of > additional information. For starters: > > - your apache version? 1.3.34 > - are the log files on NFS? No, they are stored on a lo

RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Defunct CGI processes

2005-11-07 Thread Boyle Owen
disclaimer attached to this message may be ignored. log? -Original Message- From: Marple Huckleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Freitag, 4. November 2005 20:15 To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Defunct CGI processes I submitted this a few days ago, and have not

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Defunct CGI processes

2005-11-04 Thread Marple Huckleby
  I submitted this a few days ago, and have not seen it come through - my apologies if it has come through twice.   I have a number of front-end web servers, which mount their DocumentRoot directory from an NFS server.  Several versions ago, I began seeing defunct Perl processes (not mod_perl). 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Defunct CGI processes

2005-11-02 Thread Marple Huckleby
  I have a number of front-end web servers, which mount their DocumentRoot directory from an NFS server.  Several versions ago, I began seeing defunct Perl processes (not mod_perl).  I waited and upgraded with each new release, but the problem has not gone away.   These servers run a relatively an