Re: regarding httpd.h
The defines in httpd.h all specify defaults, for example if you don't compile with --prefix=blah On Monday, October 22, 2001, at 05:47 PM, hiten pandya wrote: hi all, i was wondering.. that... why do we have fixed paths in httpd.h such as the one for define statements thanks, regards, hiten pandya [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Free E-mail - Lycos UK - http://www.lycos.co.uk Get your domain for £9.90 - http://lycos.uk.domainnames.com/default.asp?caller=lycos_ef Play now to win £1 Million - http://www.thedailydraw.com/mainframe.cfm?source=lycos
Re: RES: IncreaseStartServers
What were your original settings? The defaults? On Monday, September 3, 2001, at 05:48 PM, Daniel Abad wrote: So, what do you suggest? -Mensagem original- De: George Schlossnagle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Enviada em: Segunda-feira, 3 de Setembro de 2001 18:52 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Justin Erenkrantz ' Assunto: Re: IncreaseStartServers If you set StartServers to 300, but MaxClients (whihc should probably be called MaxServers) to 256, how will that ever be satisfied. You'll always reach MaxClients immediately on startup On Monday, September 3, 2001, at 04:45 PM, Daniel Abad wrote: Don't you think that is too much?? [Mon Sep 3 17:32:12 2001] [error] server reached MaxClients setting, consider raising the MaxClients setting In my httpd.conf: MaxClients = 256 Start Servers = 300 ( It was 5, I increased just for testing) MinSpareServers = 20 () MaxSpareServers = 800 () I can see at my access_log that one of my virtual domains is having a lot of access, but it looks like normal... what else now?? Tks for your help. Daniel -Original essage- From: Justin Erenkrantz To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 3/9/2001 17:28 Subject: Re: IncreaseStartServers On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 05:16:33PM -0300, Daniel Abad wrote: What does it means?? Is it an attack?? [Mon Sep 3 17:04:22 2001] [info] server seems busy, (you may need to increase StartServers, or Min/MaxSpareServers), spawning 16 children, there are 0 idle, and 35 total children What this means is that Apache is detecting that it doesn't not have enough children to service all incoming requests. Therefore, it is increasing the number of children to handle the load. I would look at your access logs or look at mod_status (ExtendedInfo enabled) to see what URLs are being requested. It may be an attack, or just that you have been /.ed. =-) -- justin
Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0
In contrast, with an 11,000-line implementation like mod_gzip, it's much less likely that other developers will be able to troubleshoot the code quickly if it breaks while the original authors are on vacation. A quick perusal of thesource for the 1.3 version of mod_gzip (which I've been happily using for 3 weeks now), leads me to believe that 90% of the 11,000 lines are debug code #ifdef'd out.
Re: [Fwd: [Spread-users] send text to spread group from command line?]
Hmmm... I undesrtand you concern. It might be nice to have a 'panic' type log. Still, implementing a RUN_FIRST hook has the benefit of saying 'Try and log however you want, and if you fail, then fall onto core_logging'. Sometimes people don't want redundancy in their logs, sometimes you want to be guaranteed you have one copy of it somewhere without always having 3 copies. The specific instance I see for this is error logging via spread. It would be swell to be able to just dump error logs to spread, and write to disk if and only if there was a problem (in which case, you have the logging module return a DECLINED and then you log to disk.) Implementing the hook where I did also allows you to add a run-first panic log hook that always logs fatal errors to disk, and returns DECLINED to let the rest of the handlers run. Thoughts? George - Original Message - From: Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: George Schlossnagle [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Spread-users] send text to spread group from command line?] On Monday 27 August 2001 07:26, George Schlossnagle wrote: For better or for worse, there are alot of folks who would prefer to turn off local error logging completely, and do all logging via a distributed mechanism. Actually, I was also considering whether it would be better to do a AP_IMPLEMENT_HOOK_RUN_FIRST, so that you can /truly/ override the internal logging mechanism safely. Would that fit people's safety/flexibility concerns better? There are still ways to disable the logging to the disk, but I am concerned that if you allow modules to run before the core's error logging mechanism, then you take the very real chance that you will never see any logs, ever. Also, this should not be a RUN_FIRST, because that removes any redundancy in the system at all. Ryan __ Ryan Bloom[EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: [Fwd: [Spread-users] send text to spread group from command line?]
Makes sense. Still it would be nice to be able to run core_error_log conditionally. So that I can send my logs to spread, send an SNMP trap and not log to disk, because I confirmed I succeeded in one of the first two. That's why I think it should be run last (except perhaps a fatal level error logger at the head of the bunch). The point is that I don't want to unconditionally send logs to /dev/null, but only if I succeeded in sending them with my user-defined method. - Original Message - From: Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: George Schlossnagle [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:33 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Spread-users] send text to spread group from command line?] On Monday 27 August 2001 08:14, George Schlossnagle wrote: Hmmm... I undesrtand you concern. It might be nice to have a 'panic' type log. Still, implementing a RUN_FIRST hook has the benefit of saying 'Try and log however you want, and if you fail, then fall onto core_logging'. Sometimes people don't want redundancy in their logs, sometimes you want to be guaranteed you have one copy of it somewhere without always having 3 copies. I understand this. The problem is that a RUN_FIRST removes any level of redundancy. A RUN_ALL allows the server admin to setup as much redundancy as they want. If you want to log to just spread, then set ErrorLog to /dev/null. If it is a RUN_FIRST, and I want to log to spread, and send an SNMP trap whenever I get a critical error, how do I do that? This needs to be a RUN_ALL. Ryan The specific instance I see for this is error logging via spread. It would be swell to be able to just dump error logs to spread, and write to disk if and only if there was a problem (in which case, you have the logging module return a DECLINED and then you log to disk.) Implementing the hook where I did also allows you to add a run-first panic log hook that always logs fatal errors to disk, and returns DECLINED to let the rest of the handlers run. Thoughts? George - Original Message - From: Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: George Schlossnagle [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Spread-users] send text to spread group from command line?] On Monday 27 August 2001 07:26, George Schlossnagle wrote: For better or for worse, there are alot of folks who would prefer to turn off local error logging completely, and do all logging via a distributed mechanism. Actually, I was also considering whether it would be better to do a AP_IMPLEMENT_HOOK_RUN_FIRST, so that you can /truly/ override the internal logging mechanism safely. Would that fit people's safety/flexibility concerns better? There are still ways to disable the logging to the disk, but I am concerned that if you allow modules to run before the core's error logging mechanism, then you take the very real chance that you will never see any logs, ever. Also, this should not be a RUN_FIRST, because that removes any redundancy in the system at all. Ryan __ Ryan Bloom[EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- __ Ryan Bloom[EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
