From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 12 10:16:53 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475AE1065680 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:16:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from BORJAMAR@SARENET.ES) Received: from proxypop2.sarenet.es (proxypop2.sarenet.es [194.30.0.95]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C848FC23 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:16:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from BORJAMAR@SARENET.ES) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (matahari.sarenet.es [192.148.167.18]) by proxypop2.sarenet.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52DA7730C4; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:16:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <0296197A-28ED-4DAA-A31F-C28471E864FB@SARENET.ES> From: Borja Marcos To: Ivan Voras In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v928.1) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:17:05 +0200 References: <43EC06E9-76B3-4AA1-BC5E-4E1BD64AFC2D@SARENET.ES> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.928.1) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: umtxn and Apache 2.2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:16:53 -0000 On Aug 12, 2008, at 12:12 AM, Ivan Voras wrote: > Borja Marcos wrote: >> Hello, >> I'm running a server with FreeBSD 7-STABLE as of August 8, Apache >> 2.2 with mpm/worker and threads support, and PHP 5.2.6. >> Everything works like a charm, but I see that Apache is leaking >> processes that get stuck in umtxn state. > > I run Apache 2.2 with worker MPM but without mod_php (I use PHP as > FastCGI) on many servers and I don't have such problems. Maybe it's > PHP's fault? (I agree you need a trace with debugging symbols). May me my fault. It's a system that I didn't use to administrate. I upgraded it from 6.2-REL to 7-STABLE in place, and recompiled packages. But there was a lot of litter. I'm just wondering if that could be a problem. Just in case I've done a thorough cleanup, recompiled needed ports, and included debugging support in Apache. Let's see what happens. And please accept my apologies if this has been a silly false alarm :) Thank you very much, Borja.