|
|
Posted by Joshua Ruppert on 08/03/06 20:27
Chung Leong wrote:
> Joshua Ruppert wrote:
> > But wouldn't that mean that IIS worker had crashed? Do you think IIS
> > would be able to restart the worker process if it crahes? When I
> > observed the orphaned processes I still had a working IIS worker
> > process.
>
> No, I was just using that as an example. A process doesn't have to wait
> for the termination of its children before exiting normally.
>
> I don't know the internals of IIS. It's a fairly typical practice
> though in server applications to respawn workers every now and then.
It seems like I might be back to having a monitoring process to look
for orphaned processes. One detail I may not have included in our
discussion so far is that the orphanded processes are always lower in
memory usage (~100K - ~6,000K) than properly working processes
(~10,000K - ~14,000K). This tells me that it's probably failing before
it even gets to the db connection. Does that make sense?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|