Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 22:43:47 -0800 (PST) From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: Steven Yang <syang@directhit.com>, "'freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: FW: Can't get rid of my mbufs. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.03.9810272237440.20832-100000@alive.znep.com> In-Reply-To: <199810280635.WAA00967@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Mike Smith wrote: > > SUre, the FastCGI stuff is probably doing something more complex than > > static files and it does double the total transfered (from fastcgi to the > > server, from the server to the client), but still... > > Hmm, I wasn't aware that the fastcgi reference implied a second server. > How does it communicate with the server proper? INET domain > connection(s)? Local domain connections? Named pipes? Shared memory? TCP connection. Well, ok, I guess that isn't true. It can use a pipe and probably would for local connections. OTOH, I have no idea what version is being used or how it is configured, and I'm no FastCGI expert anyway. > It sounds like there might be room there for many mbufs to be > legitimately consumed, effectively leaked by the application > interaction. Possibly. I would recommend simplifying the test case to just Apache serving a 20k static file and see if that changes things. And, of course, the netstat -n output that dg asked for to see if there is anything legit. If it hasn't been tried already, killing all the Apache and fastcgi processes and anything related and seeing if use drops down would be another possible idea. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.03.9810272237440.20832-100000>