|
I do the same thing you do... On V5R2 the problem doesn't exist. I'd say it's a bug introduced by a PTF. That is happening a lot more these days... I'd call support line and get it fixed ASAP. Brad On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:50:27 +0000 Joel Cochran <jrc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm running Apache on V5R1 and have been for some time. > Last Sunday we > loaded a PTF and now Apache encounters thread errors > several times a day > and suts itself down. > > The job log reports the following errors (in an 1100+ > page joblog ): > > CPF9898 Information 40 QZHBCGI > CGILIB > *STMT QZHBCGI CGILIB *STMT > > >From module . . . . . . . . : CGIPARSE > From procedure . . . . . . : ErrorExit__FiPc > Statement . . . . . . . . . : 470 > To module . . . . . . . . . : CGIPARSE > > To procedure . . . . . . . : ErrorExit__FiPc > Statement . . . . . . . . . : 470 > Message . . . . : QzhbCgiParse: Error: No matching > field name found. > . > Cause . . . . . : This message is used by application > programs as a > general > escape message. > > > MCH6902 Escape 40 > #hmfremi 000268 QZHBCGI CGILIB > *STMT > > To module . . . . . . . . . : CGIPARSE > To procedure . . . . . . . : CGIParse_send_error__Fv > Statement . . . . . . . . . : 476 *PRCLT > Message . . . . : The requested heap space operation > is invalid. > Cause . . . . . : The requested heap space operation > is invalid. The > heap > space identifier is 0. The activation group mark is 1. > The activation > group > mark will be zero if the heap space is not associated > with an > activation > group. The error type is 2. The error type indicating > why the heap > space > request is invalid is defined as follows: 0001-Attempt > to destroy the > default heap space; 0002-Attempt to free or reallocate > heap space > storage that is not allocated; The heap space > identifier and > activation group mark > may not be valid for this error type; 0003-Access to > the heap space > is not > allowed; 0004-Attempt to mark a heap space that cannot > be marked; > > > The first error should be no big deal, we test for form > parameters that > aren't sent all the time. The second message is what > kills the job. > > Has anyone seen anything like this? My BP is checking > for another ptf > but it doesn't look promising. Have the rules changed > for CGI_PARSE ??? > > Thanks, > > Joel > > _______________________________________________ > This is the Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries (WEB400) > mailing list > To post a message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400 > or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Before posting, please take a moment to review the > archives > at http://archive.midrange.com/web400. > Bradley V. Stone BVS.Tools www.bvstools.com
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.