Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:57:12 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Problem with accept?!! (was: Re: apache cygwin package hangs when MaxRequestsPerChild reached!) Message-ID: <20030602175712.GN875@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <006101c32799$b7fbd500$0401010a@XYZZY> <00a301c32894$06df1560$0401010a@XYZZY> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00a301c32894$06df1560$0401010a@XYZZY> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 04:17:06PM -0700, Christopher B. Liebman wrote: > Ok, after some investigation I am starting to think that the issue is with > the behavior of accept(). When the apache main forks off its pool of worker > procs, each one calls accept() on the socket file descriptor. What I have > found is that when the first process in the pool exits (usually due to the > max requests being reached) ***none*** of the other pool process return from > accept() when the next request comes in on the socket. If I kill off the > current pool procs the *first* new one will respond to requests untill the > max is recieved again then as before, non of the other pool procs return > from accept. Any ideas on how to deal with this? I've just applied a patch to Cygwin which hopefully solves that problem. Please try out the next developers snapshot. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/