CGI processing overload query

[Jenny]

I was just working on one of my sites setting up a calendar that uses a perl script when I got the following message: Server Guardian has disabled CGI processing due to an overload condition
CGI processing will be re-enabled within 2 minutes
I have never seen this message before and I was wondering what might have caused it. Have I done anything wrong? (I had been working at a very steady pace and only for about 45 minutes.) :umm:

Thanks for any assistance/advice,

Jenny

[sheila]

I must assume that this is in regards to a site hosted on the UNITY server, as it did experience some overloading issues a few moments ago.

There is a site on that server that is running Mambo and is attracting a LARGE amount of traffic today. It did cause the server loads to escalate high enough to kick in the server guardian twice this morning. You must have seen one of these events.

The site in question has been temporarily disabled in order to prevent further incidents of this type and we have notified the account holder.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you,

[Jenny]

Sheila,
Many thanks for replying so quickly and for putting my mind at rest! Yes, the site I am working on is on Unity, and don't worry, it was of no inconvenience to me. I was just worried/paranoid in case it was something to do with my script. :smile:

Thanks,

Jenny

[sheila]

Nope, not you at all. Whew!

[DogAndPony]

So, just to clarify... That message can appear when someone else's account creates an overload? Would it be possible to make the message a little more explicit... Like so's it doesn't make a non-offending site look bad?

I mean, I make enough mistakes of my own; don't need others to make me look even worse. :EG:

[Terra]

That message can appear when someone else's account creates an overload? Would it be possible to make the message a little more explicit...
Unfortunately not, the Server Guardian monitors the server as a whole, and does not know exactly which site did it... That requires manual inspection... We have tried to scope it down to site specific level, but the overhead of multi Apache child accounting caused problems because the accounting datum has to be serialized and protected by semaphores... For example, think about going to a huge trade show and there are a thousand people there, in order to gain entry you have to sign your name on a roster... Only 1 person (Apache child) may have the pen and roster at any one time, yet everyone wants to get in through the door *now*... You can quickly see the backlog that this serialization creates...

The conditions that invoke Server Guardian have to be pretty severe, and stops the overloading before it edges into tailspin that is extremely difficult to recover from...

Fortunately, we don't see the Server Guardian kick in enough to cause any major concerns, and we feel that the slight inconvenience is warranted especially for the server protection it creates... 2 minutes or less for the Server Guardian to bring things under control versus 15 to 30 minutes to fully recycle and bring a server back to production after crashing... In my administrative eyes, that is a justified tradeoff for the availability of everyones site...

--
Terra
--Nurse, crank it up to 300 joules, CLEAR!!! - pffooompppp - beep beep beep beep--
FutureQuest

[DogAndPony]

That message can appear when someone else's account creates an overload? Would it be possible to make the message a little more explicit...
Unfortunately not, the Server Guardian monitors the server as a whole, and does not know exactly which site did it...Oh... No, I didn't mean naming names.

:ytguido:

I just thought there might be some way to word the notice that makes it clearer that it's not necessarily the fault of the site being viewed... or of the user, for that matter.

:ytangel:

[Terra]

What would you recommend?

--
Terra
--me, a snitch? never!--
FutureQuest

[DogAndPony]

What would you recommend?Heh! Yeah, ya know, after my last post, I started realizing that it might be tough to word... especially since a lot of customers might like to keep their web visitors in the dark, not knowing they're on a community-style host... <Seinfeld> Not that there's anything wrong with that. </Seinfeld>.

There's nothing like having your web visitors -- or your hosting customers, for that matter -- assuming that you have some big, sweaty iron in a corporate closet, when you're actually only paying $9.95/mo. What's funny is that more than one of my not-so-techie clients has -- after years of my hosting their site -- been surprised to learn that I don't own my own server. And others are just as surprised to find out that "We have a crew who goes and fixes the server if it goes down in the middle of the night?? WOW!" :EG: Of course, if someone asks about their server, I tell 'em. --me, a snitch? never!-- :yeah:

Yeah, I guess it's pretty much optimal...

Never mind. :clown:

[TVB]

When this happens, does it take the whole site off-line with that message or only cgi-bin stuff?

And for preventative reasons, can you share what occurred with the mambo site in question?

What would you recommend?

This site can't be accessed because someone else on the server did something very, very bad, and will be punished accordingly.:rasberry:

A skull and cross bones on the offending site would suffice :EG:


Betsy

[sheila]

When this happens, does it take the whole site off-line with that message or only cgi-bin stuff?When the server displays the message:
Server Guardian has disabled CGI processing due to an overload condition
CGI processing will be re-enabled within 2 minutes
This means that all cgi-processes on the server have been prevented from starting. If a CGI script tries to launch during that time period, it will be unable to do so. No other processes on the server are inhibited when the Server Guardian disables CGI processing.

And for preventative reasons, can you share what occurred with the mambo site in question?
I'm not sure if any more details will be able to be made available, but...as far as I understand it this is simply a web site built with Mambo that got a lot of traffic, and Mambo isn't terribly efficient.

By "a lot of traffic" I mean that there was an API wire story about this particular web site that was picked up by a few newspapers and by Yahoo! News on a Saturday morning and it was just like lightning struck. Blam.

Once a static HTML web page was put in place for the index.html file, the site was returned to service and the server didn't blink an eye, despite the traffic load. The server can handle a lot if the pages are static.

The site has returned to running Mambo again today, and again the server has been fine. It appears that the traffic dropped significantly between yesterday and today.

[TVB]

This means that all cgi-processes on the server have been prevented from starting. If a CGI script tries to launch during that time period, it will be unable to do so. No other processes on the server are inhibited when the Server Guardian disables CGI processing.

Ah.

By "a lot of traffic" I mean that there was an API wire story about this particular web site that was picked up by a few newspapers and by Yahoo! News on a Saturday morning and it was just like lightning struck. Blam.

Once a static HTML web page was put in place for the index.html file, the site was returned to service and the server didn't blink an eye, despite the traffic load. The server can handle a lot if the pages are static.


Ah...again. I'm glad I have the same stop gap in place and have seen someone else be the testing ground for it.

it was just like lightning struck. Blam.

Just like your tomatoes will be..trust me :wink:


Thank you for your explanation on that.

Betsy

[DogAndPony]

By "a lot of traffic" I mean that there was an API wire story about this particular web site that was picked up by a few newspapers and by Yahoo! News on a Saturday morning and it was just like lightning struck. Blam.Hey, yea for that anonymous site owner! Good on 'em...

[Snarpy]

I'm not sure if any more details will be able to be made available, but...as far as I understand it this is simply a web site built with Mambo that got a lot of traffic, and Mambo isn't terribly efficient. Hmmm. Is there a different Mambo-like CMS that is easier on the server? What I'm fishing for is some sort of recommendation like we've had for vBulletin for forums...

Snarpy