On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Danny Sadinoff <da...@sadinoff.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Danny Sadinoff <danny.sadin...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >... >> > 1) symlinks & you. >> > It seems that mod_fcgid identifies fcgid programs by inode and device, >> > not by filename. So two fcgid programs invoked by the webserver >> > along different paths will be counted as the same if the two paths are >> > hardlinks or softlinks to each other. >> >> Mostly yes. >> >> The path to the file doesn't matter; it is the file itself that matters. >> >> There are different requirements for how programs are distinguished. >> One possibility is changing from stat() to lstat() (i.e., distinguish >> symlinks but not hard links). Another possibility is looking only at >> the basename. This was discussed in this thread: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@httpd.apache.org/msg45516.html >> >> What are you trying to accomplish which is hindered by the current >> implementation? > > My goal is a fairly simple one-application per vhost setup. But, I'm seeing > application pools shared amongst virtual hosts with distinct ServerName > declarations, all of whom refer to the same file path (and inode) for the > fcgi executable. From what you're telling me, this is buggy behavior. I'll > try to boil my config down further and come up with a good testcase. > Whether my config is wrong or the implementation is buggy, I would think > that the mere existance of the dev thread trying to nail down the semantics > ought to be argument enough for > documenting the file-path-vs-inode behavior.
sure does this cover it for you? http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_fcgid.xml?r1=823178&r2=834283&diff_format=h >> FWIW, this isn't part of "Apache httpd 2.3". mod_fcgid is released >> separately from the web server and only by coincidence has the same >> version number (2.3.x) as development levels of the web server. > > Well, that's another doc bug, since the page I link to has a big > header that says: > "Apache HTTP Server Version 2.3" ouch; mod_fcgid uses the same doc framework/settings as httpd (maybe somebody will figure out how to fold the mod_fcgid docs into the manual for the level of httpd it is installed with)
