[lkml]   [1996]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Why doesn't Apache/Stronghold like Linux 2.0.x?

On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, David N. Cicalo wrote:

> > You can try kernel 2.0.28 when it comes out.
> > It should be "more stable" than 2.0.27 :)
> As suggested by another user, removing the STATS and INFO modules in
> Apache/ Stringhold has solved the problem without making any other
> changes. It's a simple modification in the the Makefile and a
> recompile.

I think you'll find that wasn't the problem. I'd been running without
those modules and was seeing Apache 1.1.1 cease to fork and answer
requests. I recently added both those modules so I can sort of keep an
eye on the status. I've heard we should upgrade to 1.2b2 or that we
should do that _and_ define BROKEN_WAIT. I'm not sure what if either will
solve the problem. BROKEN_WAIT looks like it adds some sanity checking to
make sure server slots don't "vanish".

Jon Lewis <> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr.
________Finger for PGP public key_______

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.052 / U:0.932 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site