Mailing List Archive

cpu / memory intensive children
I've got a single point 3 machine cluster: Things work well for the most part, but
I've noticed that (in 'top') some of the apache children are substantially larger
than all the others after only a few reqests; most hover around 5M (normal), but
others grow wildy up to 20,30, even 50M. This instance handles static content and
ssl, along with being the backhand decision maker.

When one of these fat children field a request, they grow quickly in memory and the
cpu pegs. When the lighter (healthy?) children handle a request the performance is
great and the cpu is totally fine.

Software:
Solaris 8, Apache 1.3.12 (old, I know), static backhand, raven ssl. Apache was
compiled with a shared core. The binary shared via NFS.

A typical directe (pretty straight forward)

<FilesMatch "\.(cgi|pl)$">
Backhand removeSelf
Backhand byAge
Backhand byLoad
</FilesMatch>


I doubt that the above could contribute to this problem, but I've included it just
in case. If anyone out there has some ideas I would appreciate it greatly.

Regards,
Matt

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
cpu / memory intensive children [ In reply to ]
Matt C. wrote:

>I've got a single point 3 machine cluster: Things work well for the most part, but
>I've noticed that (in 'top') some of the apache children are substantially larger
>than all the others after only a few reqests; most hover around 5M (normal), but
>others grow wildy up to 20,30, even 50M. This instance handles static content and
>ssl, along with being the backhand decision maker.
>
>When one of these fat children field a request, they grow quickly in memory and the
>cpu pegs. When the lighter (healthy?) children handle a request the performance is
>great and the cpu is totally fine.
>
>Software:
>Solaris 8, Apache 1.3.12 (old, I know), static backhand, raven ssl. Apache was
>compiled with a shared core. The binary shared via NFS.
>
>A typical directe (pretty straight forward)
>
><FilesMatch "\.(cgi|pl)$">
> Backhand removeSelf
> Backhand byAge
> Backhand byLoad
></FilesMatch>
>
>
>I doubt that the above could contribute to this problem, but I've included it just
>in case. If anyone out there has some ideas I would appreciate it greatly.
>
I have trouble believing that backhand is the cuplrit here. It doesn't
alloc much.

--
Theo Schlossnagle
Principal Consultant
OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. -- http://www.omniti.com/
Phone: +1 301 776 6376 Fax: +1 410 880 4879
1024D/82844984/95FD 30F1 489E 4613 F22E 491A 7E88 364C 8284 4984
2047R/33131B65/71 F7 95 64 49 76 5D BA 3D 90 B9 9F BE 27 24 E7
cpu / memory intensive children [ In reply to ]
> I have trouble believing that backhand is the cuplrit here. It doesn't
> alloc much.

Agreed. I'm totally at a loss. Trussed the thing like mad today, had one of our
strongest programmers helping - we've decided that it's some sort of system
wierdness with our Solaris 8 setup or a misconfiguration, although backhand was
working well with my initial tests.
Here is a typical scene when it starts to eat the cpu and memory:

time() = 1019758885
519: brk(0x01A28A88) = 0
519: brk(0x01A2AA88) = 0
519: time() = 1019758885
519: so_socket(2, 2, 0, "", 1) = 7
519: connect(7, 0xFFBD4CD8, 16, 1) Err#146 ECONNREFUSED
519: close(7) = 0
519: brk(0x01A2AA88) = 0
519: brk(0x01A2CA88) = 0
519: brk(0x01A2CA88) = 0
519: brk(0x01A2EA88) = 0
519: write(-1, " G E T / H T T P / 1".., 281) Err#9 EBADF
519: read(-1, 0x01A1FED0, 4096) Err#9 EBADF

...followed by MANY more brk(). Not sure why, but some children are throwing
ECONNREFUSED. Backside NIC looks fine, although I didn't dig in too deeply.

The backhand handler displays normally.

I'll RR dns for now and test a bit more from a fresh setup; if I find anything of
worth (read: not an oversight on my part somewhere) I'll follow up to the list.

Thanks,
Matt

--- Theo Schlossnagle <jesus@omniti.com> wrote:
> Matt C. wrote:
>
> >I've got a single point 3 machine cluster: Things work well for the most part,
> but
> >I've noticed that (in 'top') some of the apache children are substantially larger
> >than all the others after only a few reqests; most hover around 5M (normal), but
> >others grow wildy up to 20,30, even 50M. This instance handles static content and
> >ssl, along with being the backhand decision maker.
> >
> >When one of these fat children field a request, they grow quickly in memory and
> the
> >cpu pegs. When the lighter (healthy?) children handle a request the performance
> is
> >great and the cpu is totally fine.
> >
> >Software:
> >Solaris 8, Apache 1.3.12 (old, I know), static backhand, raven ssl. Apache was
> >compiled with a shared core. The binary shared via NFS.
> >
> >A typical directe (pretty straight forward)
> >
> ><FilesMatch "\.(cgi|pl)$">
> > Backhand removeSelf
> > Backhand byAge
> > Backhand byLoad
> ></FilesMatch>
> >
> >
> >I doubt that the above could contribute to this problem, but I've included it
> just
> >in case. If anyone out there has some ideas I would appreciate it greatly.
> >
> I have trouble believing that backhand is the cuplrit here. It doesn't
> alloc much.
>
> --
> Theo Schlossnagle
> Principal Consultant
> OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. -- http://www.omniti.com/
> Phone: +1 301 776 6376 Fax: +1 410 880 4879
> 1024D/82844984/95FD 30F1 489E 4613 F22E 491A 7E88 364C 8284 4984
> 2047R/33131B65/71 F7 95 64 49 76 5D BA 3D 90 B9 9F BE 27 24 E7
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> backhand-users mailing list
> backhand-users@lists.backhand.org
> http://lists.backhand.org/mailman/listinfo/backhand-users


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/