Re: proposal: add external_acl flags: max_requests min_alive

On 4/26/06, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net> wrote:
> ons 2006-04-26 klockan 11:13 -0300 skrev Gonzalo Arana:
>
> > I proposed min_alive to limit helper recycle rate, not to increase it.
>
> I know, and I question the need to have this lower limit on the helper
> restarts.
>
> > max_requests imposes a relation between request rate and helper
> > recycle rate. If request rate increases drastically (not a difficult
> > thing to do), helpers may start recycling too fast.
>
> Only if max_requests is set relatively low compared to how buggy the
> helper is. It should only be set low if there is serious problems, in
> which case you actually want to have it restarted even if the request
> rate is high.

I see your point now (max_requests should be big enough).

> > agreed :D. I am no having troubles with my helpers, but process
> > rotation is a good policy (at some extent).
>
> As long as the helpers behave reasonably the daily rotation done as part
> of the log rotation process should be sufficient.

Indeed.

> > helper rotation would help not only as a dirty way of coping with
> > resource leakage, but as well as a way of using shorter idle timeouts
> > for database conections.
>
> idle timeouts is best managed in the helpers imho. And if this was the

Right.

> gole there would be a need for a "restart_interval" option rather than
> min_alive, placing an upper limit on how long the helper is kept
> running.

I have no particular issue with my own helpers, it just came to my
mind that helper rotation should bring benefits and no troubles. I
understand now that helper rotation rate should be slow anyway, so it
would not bring concerns.

Regards,

--
Gonzalo A. Arana