In response to Hannes Dorbath <light@theendofthetunnel.de>:
> > On 24.08.2007 02:43, Bill Moran wrote:
> >> Hannes Dorbath <light@theendofthetunnel.de> wrote:
> >>> Bill Moran wrote:
> >>>> I guess I just feel that "broken" is a bit of a harsh term. If
> >>>> your expectations are for full-blown connection management from
> >>>> pconnect(), then you will be disappointed. If you take it for
> >>>> what it is: persistent connections, then those limitations would
> >>>> be expected.
> >>> It's broken because persistent connections get randomly garbage
> >>> collected where they should not. So broken in the sense of bugged.
> >>> Expect connections to die for no reason, especially under load.
> >>
> >> It's funny that you should mention that, since I haven't seen that
> >> behaviour in 18 months of load testing over a dozen servers.
>
> Please reply to the list as well.
Your reply to me did not have the list in the CC.
> How did you verify that? It will spawn a new connection silently, if the
> old got dropped. Did you really verify your logs, that you don't get
> more new connections than Apache spawns workers? This might not be
> noticeable for you, if you are running Apache. In a FCGI environment
> where you have a fixed amount of workers, you notice new connections, as
> there should not be any.
As I stated in the other reply to an email that looked similar to this
one -- I'm not sure I understand the behaviour you're trying to describe.
--
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com
