Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:47956 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 27382 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2010 08:23:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Apr 2010 08:23:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=jerome@loyet.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=jerome@loyet.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain loyet.net from 72.14.220.156 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: jerome@loyet.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 72.14.220.156 fg-out-1718.google.com Received: from [72.14.220.156] ([72.14.220.156:23508] helo=fg-out-1718.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 53/96-20494-E0DC6CB4 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 04:23:44 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 22so2380490fge.11 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 01:23:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.239.135.83 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 01:23:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BC6CAE6.5020605@daylessday.org> References: <4BC6CAE6.5020605@daylessday.org> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:23:39 +0200 Received: by 10.239.136.71 with SMTP id g7mr518893hbg.48.1271319819884; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 01:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: To: Antony Dovgal Cc: internals@lists.php.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] One suggestion to PHP-FPM From: jerome@loyet.net (=?ISO-8859-1?B?Suly9G1lIExveWV0?=) 2010/4/15 Antony Dovgal : > On 06.04.2010 11:11, =E6=BB=95=E8=B7=AF=E9=81=A5 wrote: >> So I suggest that if we could add a config option to PHP-FPM, so that >> PHP-FPM could just kill a PHP process if it consumes too much memory >> (say more than 256M). > > I personally don't think this belongs to any SAPI. > How about adding another ini option to PECL/memtrack to not just throw a = warning, > but terminate the process when it hits some limit? In fork processes it could be great but when dealing with threads it won't = work