[PATCH] backend conditional requests 5th release

[Geoff Simmons]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 03/ 9/11 03:17 PM, Dmitry Panov wrote:
> 
> Just a heads up, I'm getting assertion failures when running a rather
> simple testcase: using local apache that serves /user/share/doc as the
> backend and running wget -r http://localhost:6802/doc Shortly after that
> the following errors start to appear:
> 
> Child (11125) Panic message: Assert error in http_Write(), cache_http.c
> line 1181:
>   Condition((hp->hd[HTTP_HDR_STATUS].b) != 0) not true.
> thread = (cache-worker)

Thanks for the heads up. Can you send over the whole stack trace?

> I have been able to reproduce it on 2 different machines with very
> different hardware configurations which makes hardware problem quite
> unlikely. Also
> 
> httperf --server localhost --port 6802 --uri /  --num-conns 1
> --num-calls 4000
> 
> runs without a problem.
> 
> These 2 machines both run 32bit linux kernel. I haven't been able to
> reproduce the problem in a 64bit environment.

Could be running out of workspace. I fixed a similar error during the
course of development, which had to do with the fact that sufficient
workspace has to be allocated for the both backend response *and* the
stale object; you might have found something related. Also, I've only
been testing with 64 bit; looks like I better test 32 bit as well.

Is there any way you can send the request & response that are being
processed when the error happens?

And what if you set --num-conns high and --num-calls low, say 400
connections and 10 calls per connection? Or keep setting --num-conns
higher, to see if you can provoke the error? I've been running httperf
with 25,000 connections and 1000 calls per connection, found a memory
leak that way.

> Unfortunately I haven't got time to try the unpatched trunk (I tried it
> with revisions 3 and 4 of the patch) or do any further experiments but
> I'll try to do so in the next couple of days and then post more details.

It's a good idea to test on the unpatched trunk as well, to make sure
that the bug really comes from the patch.

Thanks very much for the feedback!


Best,
Geoff
- -- 
** * * UPLEX - Nils Goroll Systemoptimierung

Schwanenwik 24
22087 Hamburg

Tel +49 40 2880 5731
Mob +49 176 636 90917
Fax +49 40 42949753

http://uplex.de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (SunOS)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=WtW9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----