|
Jamie Kirkpatrick
jkp at kirkconsulting.co.uk
Wed Mar 16 16:36:45 EST 2005
>> >> So, after a normal start error log shows: >> >> [Wed Mar 16 11:03:43 2005] [notice] mod_python: Creating 32 session >> mutexes based on 150 max processes and 0 max threads. >> [Wed Mar 16 11:03:43 2005] [error] Performing Initialisation. >> [Wed Mar 16 11:03:43 2005] [notice] Digest: generating secret for >> digest authentication ... >> [Wed Mar 16 11:03:43 2005] [notice] Digest: done >> [Wed Mar 16 11:03:44 2005] [notice] Apache/2.0.53 (Unix) DAV/2 >> mod_python/3.1.3 Python/2.4 configured -- resuming normal operations >> >> Then I call the test script: >> >> [Wed Mar 16 11:04:52 2005] [error] The name passed was: >> [Wed Mar 16 11:04:52 2005] [error] thegrove.homeip.net >> [Wed Mar 16 11:04:53 2005] [notice] mod_python: (Re)importing module >> 'test' >> [Wed Mar 16 11:04:53 2005] [error] start import >> [Wed Mar 16 11:04:53 2005] [error] end import >> [Wed Mar 16 11:04:53 2005] [error] start handler >> [Wed Mar 16 11:04:53 2005] [error] end handler >> [Wed Mar 16 11:04:53 2005] [error] Name was NULL. >> >> Cool - fixed that crash (my fault!), but it still puzzles me why the >> handler gets called again here. > > Am not sure which part of the logs you are referring to, I only see > the handler itself being called once. I dont mean the handler, i mean the initialiser (sorry). The first time name is set to thegrove.homeip.net and the second time to NULL. > >> Now a restart - the following is added to the logs: >> >> [Wed Mar 16 11:06:01 2005] [error] Name was NULL. >> [Wed Mar 16 11:06:01 2005] [error] Name was NULL. >> [Wed Mar 16 11:06:01 2005] [error] Name was NULL. >> [Wed Mar 16 11:06:01 2005] [error] Name was NULL. >> [Wed Mar 16 11:06:01 2005] [error] Name was NULL. >> [Wed Mar 16 11:06:01 2005] [error] Name was NULL. >> [Wed Mar 16 11:06:07 2005] [notice] SIGHUP received. Attempting to >> restart >> [Wed Mar 16 11:06:07 2005] [notice] mod_python: Creating 32 session >> mutexes based on 150 max processes and 0 max threads. >> [Wed Mar 16 11:06:07 2005] [notice] Digest: generating secret for >> digest authentication ... >> [Wed Mar 16 11:06:07 2005] [notice] Digest: done >> [Wed Mar 16 11:06:08 2005] [notice] Apache/2.0.53 (Unix) DAV/2 >> mod_python/3.1.3 Python/2.4 configured -- resuming normal operations >> >> Again I have multiple instances of httpd running now ... is this >> normal? > > The lookup of interpreters by NULL is something to do with the > cleanup handlers for the interpreter. Not sure why NULL though. > Can't tell here whether they are in separate processes or not. > Are you using "ps" to note there are multiple processes running. > Because your Apache is running in prefork mode, it is normal for > it to create multiple processes even if not all may be used in > your simple test. I am using ps and there are multiple instances running. I didnt start them so ill assume this is normal apache behaviour. Is prefork the default then? What is the alternative to this mode? <snip> > > I understand the patch is in the subversion repository for the > mod_python > source code: > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/mod_python/trunk/src/ > mod_python.c > Good! > The original person who developed mod_python doesn't really look > after it > anymore and maintenance has been taken over by someone else. He has > been > slowly working through fixing some of the known problems and simply > hasn't > made an updated release yet. The security fix release done recently > was a > rush job based on source of previous version. Because there is this > transition to a new maintainer, updating of the web site is also in a > state > of flux to a degree. > Noted. > I possibly should point out that although I try and provide help to > people > on the mailing list, I am not involved in the maintenance of > mod_python > itself except as far as I have posted up a lot of bug reports for > stuff I've > found and possible fixes. I have only been using mod_python for about > six > months and wasn't intending to get so involved in it nor develop > Vampire. > I was only after an easier way to construct web pages for my site. I > really > need to be getting back to my main projects which have been > stagnating while > on this diversion. :-( > > Anyway, outcome from your problem is that I now know that the Mac OS > X fix > is relevant to the platform generally and not just Apples Python 2.3 > installation. Another bit of useful information to help people out. > > Graham > So, just to say a big thank you. Your tips were an interesting insight into how this stuff works, but I really ought to read the API for Apache to understand this stuff better - as with you though too much to do! But yes, you are right, this has been useful as I can say with certainty that this is a general OS X issue - it appears on the stock 2.3, a custom 2.3 and 2.4. I have informed dports of the issue and we have included a patch in the port now so people installing that way should get something that works correctly. Well done on the patch tho, and thanks for all your effort... Jamie ..../me unsubscribes ;)
|