Hello!

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 09:45:40AM -0500, radarek wrote:

> Maxim Dounin Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Hello!
> >
> > The above may happen if nginx worker process dies,
> > leaving cache
> > node marked as being updated. Try looking into
> > your logs to see
> > if this is the case. That is: if you have alerts
> > about "worker
> > process exited on signal ..." - you have a
> > problem, and this is
> > expected result.
>
> I looked in the error log and found exactly what you suggested:
> 2011/08/09 08:50:15 [alert] 25485#0: cache loader process 25488 exited
> on signal 9
> 2011/10/16 17:16:36 [alert] 25509#0: worker process 25510 exited on
> signal 6
> 2012/01/16 12:48:13 [alert] 9183#0: worker process 9184 exited on signal
> 6
> 2012/01/16 14:19:24 [alert] 9183#0: worker process 11897 exited on
> signal 6
>
> Shouldn't it be treated as a bug? Do you know what thing could caused
> sending signal 6 to worker process?

There are lots of bugs fixed since 0.7.65 which may cause this.
Signal 6 is likely generated by libc due to detected memory
corruption.

> > In any case it's good idea to upgrade from long
> > unsupported 0.7.x
> > branch to at least stable 1.0.x.
> >
>
> Yeah, I will probably do it in near future.

Yes, please.

Maxim Dounin

_______________________________________________
nginx mailing list
nginx@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx