[rt-users] FastCGI vs/or FastCGId? System memory "leak"?

[Justin Zygmont]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 11:52, Justin Zygmont wrote:
> 
> 
>>I switched back to fastcgi, it worked again.  so I know fcgid can't be 
>>100%, it's too bad, I don't know why something as useful as fastcgi 
>>wouldn't be maintained anymore.
> 
> 
> When something works there's not much need to be maintained. I
> haven't had any problems that I'd blame on fastcgi after installing
> according to:
> http://wiki.bestpractical.com/index.cgi?RHEL4InstallGuide
> 
> The one thing that might be different between mod_perl and
> fastcgi is that apache has a directive for how many pages
> to let a child process serve before killing it and starting
> a new one that work with mod_perl processes.  You can use this
> to balance between speed and memory leaks by forcing the
> perl processes to restart regularly. I don't think fastcgi
> has a similar option, although if the program exited on its
> own it should restart a new one.  Is there any RT option to
> say that if it is consuming some amount of memory and has served
> some number of pages that it should die at the end of a request?

If it has a memory leak, there's a reason to maintain the code, it hasnt 
been changed since 2003, which is why some of us are thinking it may no 
longer be maintained.

Is that MaxRequestsPerChild ?  such a setting for fastcgi could provide 
a way to control the problem.  Just watch the memory usage for your fcgi 
processes, as long as you dont restart apache, you'll se them slowly get 
bigger and bigger.



-- 
Justin Zygmont
System Administrator
Cityfone Telecommunications Inc

direct 604.629.8841
cell 778.239.7215
email justin at cityfone.net