From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 23 14:48:49 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF11D106566C for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:48:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74E988FC18 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:48:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 351C746B03; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:48:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:48:48 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Dmitriy Kirhlarov In-Reply-To: <480EE8B2.2020907@higis.ru> Message-ID: <20080423154626.F64388@fledge.watson.org> References: <8481.1208889581@critter.freebsd.dk> <480E3E66.3000303@samsco.org> <480E589C.8010108@delphij.net> <480EE8B2.2020907@higis.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Http Accept filters (accf_http) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:48:49 -0000 On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Dmitriy Kirhlarov wrote: > Xin LI wrote: >> | Does anyone know why accf_accept is disabled by default in the ports' >> | stock Apache 2.2 (it's disabled in the default config files)? I thought >> >> Yes, I wonder that too. Personally I think it might be a good idea to just >> bind accf_http and accf_data into GENERIC, as I always add them > > We are using accf_http and accf_data on 6.1-6.3 with apache and proftpd. Now > we have periodical sockets leak. We can't reproduce it, but accf_* under > suspiction. If you kill apache and wait a few seconds, does the socket count go back down to normal? Shutting down to single user mode and comparing allocated memory with vmstat -z and vmstat -m against similar measurements made before going up to multi-user (ignoring file system stuff) might well shed some light. I'm aware of a few problems relating to accept filters, and "fixing" them has been on my todo list for several years. Unfortunately, other things keep getting ahead of that in the todo list. One known issue is that accept filters aren't entirely happy with the new multi-processor locking world order. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge