Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:03:22 -0400 From: John Johnstone <jjohnstone.nospamfreebsd@tridentusa.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Help:: Listen queue overflow killing servers Message-ID: <71a77de7-7822-7543-a852-9280316c8aeb@tridentusa.com> In-Reply-To: <22f7262b-eda8-f9d1-8836-61bcea8e1c5f@gmail.com> References: <3a62375a-432c-3533-a7bc-e5573c26fa9c@ifdnrg.com> <92866b76-5f11-2523-cc8f-0d92cc91a50e@bytecamp.net> <a4675162-4241-2145-3380-c12253032da1@ifdnrg.com> <22f7262b-eda8-f9d1-8836-61bcea8e1c5f@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/26/19 9:24 AM, MJ wrote: > > On 26/07/2019 11:08 pm, Paul Macdonald via freebsd-questions wrote: >> >> On 26/07/2019 13:52, Robert Schulze wrote: >> One of the things we do (whihc may be bad) is to log to a single file >> ( e.g all.sites.log, this doesn;t seem to cause problems in general , >> but i can see how if there's X child processes then they may all need >> write locks) >> > Unless it's hammering the log and there's locks on it. > > >> Is that a really bad idea? ( Often handy to have one file for >> differnet vhosts, but maybe that needs a rethink) > > Syslog works this way. With syslog there are multiple processes all their messages to port 514. There is just a single process syslogd which then writes to its files. The situation here seems to be that all.sites.log is opened for writing with shared access by multiple processes which would be different from syslog. Maybe that approach should also be taken here. With any approach, with one log file there is a serialization of everything written to that file. The throughput of the method that does that becomes a limiting factor. Maybe that limit is being reached. - John J.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?71a77de7-7822-7543-a852-9280316c8aeb>