Thank you very much for the quick response, Luca. It definitely sounds like that could be related to the problems I’m having. Looking at the patch, however, both the original and the replacement seem to be enforcing a minimum value to MinSpareThreads that would correspond to at least one completely idle process. From my perspective, I think that is contradicting the documentation provided for Max/MinSpareThreads and preventing me from spawning additional processes only when the existing ones start to become full.
I’m going to dive into that specific section of code further and see if I can’t dig something up. Rick Houser Web Administration (517)367-3516 From: Luca Toscano [mailto:toscano.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 11:02 To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [users@httpd] Problems with Event MPM Performance Tuning in 2.4.18 Hi Rick! 2016-05-31 15:57 GMT+02:00 Houser, Rick <rick.hou...@jackson.com<mailto:rick.hou...@jackson.com>>: I have to deal with mod_cluster, and it is extremely memory hungry (in the GB range per process). As mitigation, I’m trying to get down to a single apache worker process per host when we aren’t under heavy load. That would save me about 6GB per host. We have several hosts running the exact same thing behind a load balancer and I’ve never seen a crash, so I’m not concerned with running a single instance. Running 4 20 thread instances is almost 4 times the memory of this one instance, for example. This is the relevant portion of the configuration: LoadModule mpm_event_module modules/mod_mpm_event.so ServerLimit 8 StartServers 1 ThreadLimit 80 ThreadsPerChild 80 MaxRequestWorkers 640 MaxSpareThreads 120 MinSpareThreads 8 The top of mod-Status: Apache Server Status for HOSTNAME (via 10.X.X.X) Server Version: CUSTOMSTRING/2.4.18 (Unix) OpenSSL/1.0.1e-fips mod_cluster/1.3.1.Final Server MPM: event Server Built: Dec 16 2015 16:07:29 ________________________________________ Current Time: Tuesday, 17-May-2016 14:37:00 EDT Restart Time: Monday, 02-May-2016 09:36:16 EDT Parent Server Config. Generation: 10 Parent Server MPM Generation: 9 Server uptime: 15 days 5 hours 44 seconds Server load: 0.72 0.75 0.89 Total accesses: 39007867 - Total Traffic: 1.7 GB CPU Usage: u2533.2 s168.49 cu0 cs0 - .206% CPU load 29.7 requests/sec - 1364 B/second - 45 B/request 5 requests currently being processed, 155 idle workers PID Connections Threads Async connections total accepting busy idle writing keep-alive closing 11397 35 yes 2 78 0 33 0 29323 26 yes 3 77 0 23 0 Sum 61 5 155 0 56 0 ................................................................ ................________________________________________________ _______W____W___________________................................ ................................................____________W___ ______W__________________________________W______________________ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ The idle threads here usually stays around the mid 150s. These particular workers were started about 40 minutes apart, but I have the similar pattern showing in other regions with similar start times and the same workers being up for over a month. Given the MaxSpareThreads 120, I would expect this to drop the second worker fairly quickly and work as described (https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mpm_common.html#maxsparethreads). But, that’s not happening and I'm stuck with two processes handling the load. It's acting almost as if there is a "ServerMin 2" directive hard-coded or something. This certainly looks like a bug (whether in the documentation or the code itself). Any suggestions on how to get this to work before I submit a bug ticket? IIRC we had a similar issue earlier on in this email list: https://www.mail-archive.com/users@httpd.apache.org/msg60181.html Afaik the fix has not been ported to the 2.4.x branch yet.. If this is what you are experiencing, we'll follow up with the devs to check what is the status of the backport proposal. Let me know! Luca
