[ic] Re: ALERT: bad pipe signal received for /page.html
music at labyrinth.net.au
Tue Dec 12 01:33:55 EST 2006
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Walsh" <kevin at cursor.biz>
To: <interchange-users at icdevgroup.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ic] Re: ALERT: bad pipe signal received for /page.html
> "Music" <music at labyrinth.net.au> wrote:
>> ifdef TRAFFIC =~ /rpc/i
>> Message RPC traffic settings.
>> PreFork Yes
>> StartServers 5
>> MaxServers 0
>> MaxRequestsPerChild 100
>> HouseKeeping 2
>> PIDcheck 120
>> ChildLife 30 minutes
>> I also tried disabling ChildLife and PreFork and increasing start
>> All with no joy.
>> 'Applying Changes' to one catalogue puts the Interchange daemon into
>> No errors are displayed in IC error.log, catalog error.log nor apache
>> Just thought I would document this on the list to see if any feedback
> Just as an experiment, could you reduce the ChildLife to 60 (1 minute),
> restart Interchange and reproduce the problem. I suspect that the problem
> will clear itself within one minute.
Yes, spot on. The problem pages disappeared after the 60 seconds!
> If that happens then we know that the problem is probably in Interchange
> itself, rather than than in Interchange::Link.
Not using Interchange:Link on this server - just regular tlink CGI running
in Inet Mode.
> The thinking is that the "apply changes" (or whatever), causes one of
> the Interchange children to throw its toys out of its pram. The constant
> refreshes then causes the naughty child to receive a request every now
> and again, resulting in a moody page.
> One thing that may debunk my theory is your assertion that the problem
> still occurs when PreFork is switched off. Can you check that again
> for me.
Testing with Pre-Fork - Oh dear - it appears Pre-For is the problem.
I commented out Pre-Fork and ChildLife and the server is running very
I can't reporduce the problem. Now I have to try and remember why I added
Pre-Fork and ChildLife; I hope it is not too dramatic a jolt!
I have dropped the PERL_SIGNALS=unsafe in restart command now also and all
is running well.
> I'm afraid I don't have an Interchange::Link setup to play with. If
> someone wants to allow me some time on their machine, and a guaranteed
> way to reproduce the problem, I'm sure I could track it down reasonably
You are more than welcome to test our Apache 2 setup however as I say not
using Interchange:Link on this one as it doesn't play with the version of
mod_perl (1.99_09-10.ent) available for centos3.
>There's never been any demand for mod_interchange on Apache 2.x
There is from some of us!! :-)
More information about the interchange-users