Hide Forgot
Description of problem: It seems when you use the MPM Worker module directives in a specific order (inside conf/httpd.conf) the Httpd ignores the ThreadLimit directive. Thus the httpd falls back the ThreadLimit to a default value (64). Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Apache Httpd How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. edit the conf/httpd.conf 2. change the MPM Worker module directives to something like this (the important here is the directive order) # Wrong order ServerLimit 20 StartServers 8 MinSpareThreads 5 MaxSpareThreads 20 ThreadsPerChild 120 MaxClients 1200 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 ThreadLimit 120 ThreadStackSize 10240 3. restart the httpd service Actual results: [root@vm123 conf.d]# /etc/init.d/httpd restart Parando o httpd: [ OK ] Iniciando httpd: WARNING: ThreadsPerChild of 120 exceeds ThreadLimit value of 64 threads, lowering ThreadsPerChild to 64. To increase, please see the ThreadLimit directive. WARNING: MaxClients (1200) is not an integer multiple of ThreadsPerChild (64), lowering MaxClients to 1152 for a maximum of 18 child processes, [ OK ] Expected results: ThreadLimit directive be recognized in any order it appears. Additional info: If you just put the 'ThreadLimit' before 'ThreadsPerchild' the Apache Httpd works fine. e.g # Correct order ServerLimit 20 StartServers 8 MinSpareThreads 5 MaxSpareThreads 20 ThreadLimit 120 ThreadsPerChild 120 MaxClients 1200 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 ThreadStackSize 10240 I've found a thread [1] discussing this issue in a Debian forum. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=495656
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in a release.
This is a known defect in the 2.2 config handling which has been fixed in 2.4 upstream, so will get solved up in a future release of RHEL. The patch is very invasive, and since the problem is relatively trivial to work around, we don't plan to backport it.
Development Management has reviewed and declined this request. You may appeal this decision by reopening this request.