Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On 07/20/2009 10:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/) > [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12. > Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs. Is this tarball created with APR 1.3.7 (yet unreleased)? Regards Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On Jul 20, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 07/20/2009 10:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/) [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12. Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs. Is this tarball created with APR 1.3.7 (yet unreleased)? Regards Rüdiger Yes. The intent is to release both at the same time.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On 07/20/2009 10:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/) > [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12. > Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs. > > (it may take some time for the site to sync). > > +1 on release. - checksums and signatures ok. - Tested on the following platforms Solaris 8 - 9 (SPARC): worker and prefork MPM build and start up. No testsuite due to lack of complete perl kit on my machines. Solaris 10(SPARC): worker, event and prefork MPM build and start up. Only limited test results from the framework due to incomplete perl framework on my machine, but no regressions noted. Note: On Solaris _default_ in a virtual host causes httpd to try resolving 255.255.255.255 which still fails. But maybe this is just a configuration bug on my box. RHEL4 & 5 32 / 64 Bit: All tests pass (worker, event, prefork). SuSE 10.2 32 Bit : All tests pass (worker, event, prefork). Regards Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On 21.07.2009 20:44, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > Solaris 10(SPARC): worker, event and prefork MPM build and start up. >Only limited test results from the framework due to > incomplete >perl framework on my machine, but no regressions noted. >Note: On Solaris _default_ in a virtual host >causes httpd to try resolving 255.255.255.255 which > still fails. >But maybe this is just a configuration bug on my box. I think this lookup is expected behaviour, e.g. see https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20063 Regards, Rainer
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against openssl-1.0.0betaX, as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be cleaned. /PS
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On Jul 20, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/) [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12. Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs. (it may take some time for the site to sync). +1 for: Solaris 10 (sparc) Ubuntu 8.10 CentOS 4 OS X 10.5.7
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Jim Jagielski wrote: Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/) [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12. Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs. (it may take some time for the site to sync). +1 for: tfm32 tfm64 Works as exected on both versions Regards, Mihai Moldovanu TFM Group Software -- Acest document apartine grupului de companii MPI / Pro Tv. Cu toate ca au fost luate masuri pentru a controla raspandirea virusilor, acest mesaj, impreuna cu orice atasament continut, este destinat numai pentru folosinta persoanei / persoanelor carora i se adreseaza si poate contine informatii confidentiale, care sunt supuse dreptului de autor sau constituie secret de marca. Daca nu sunteti destinatarul acestui mesaj, va notificam ca este strict interzisa orice transmitere, copiere sau distribuire a acestuia sau a oricarui atasament continut de acesta. Daca ati primit acest mesaj din greseala, va rugam sa ne anuntati imediat printr-un e-mail trimis la adresa postmas...@protv.ro This document originates from within the MPI/Pro TV group of companies. Whilst we have taken steps to control the spread of viruses, this message together with any associated files, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or any files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us at once Mail to: postmas...@protv.ro --
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On Jul 20, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/) [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12. Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs. (it may take some time for the site to sync). I'm going to give it another ~24hrs to allow more people to chime in :)
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Jim Jagielski wrote: Solaris 10 (sparc) Ubuntu 8.10 CentOS 4 OS X 10.5.7 also good on Slackware 12.2 -- Res -Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On Jul 20, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/) [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12. Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs. (it may take some time for the site to sync). Hrm... Just 2 binding +1 votes, Rüdiger and myself... Can I get another Amen?!
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jul 20, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/) [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12. Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs. (it may take some time for the site to sync). Hrm... Just 2 binding +1 votes, Rüdiger and myself... Can I get another Amen?! Installed it on OpenSolaris, tried the test framework. Seems most of the latter made no attempt to run. I have yet to find time to investigate why - hence no vote yet. -- Nick Kew
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote: Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against openssl-1.0.0betaX, as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be cleaned. Trunk became aware of OpenSSL trunk a while ago... but I don't recall putting that up for backport. I'll do so when I have come cycles. S. -- Sander Temme scte...@apache.org PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Hrm... Just 2 binding +1 votes, Rüdiger and myself... Can I get > another Amen?! Amen! Oh - you want a vote :) Working on that right now; just getting the most modern openssl behaving right, to export postmortem diagnostics e.g. sensible .pdb's. So likely later today. And of course, -1 previously reverted; presuming you are updating the apr announce and site as RM, right?
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On Jul 23, 2009, at 12:57 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: And of course, -1 previously reverted; presuming you are updating the apr announce and site as RM, right? That's an APR question so I'm -1 on answering it here *snark* :) :)
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jul 23, 2009, at 12:57 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> >> And of course, -1 previously reverted; presuming you are updating the >> apr announce and site as RM, right? >> > > That's an APR question so I'm -1 on answering it here In part... my -1 is gone here once there is something on apr.apache.org that says it's released, so I simply asked as a reminder that httpd only ships what APR says it shipped, IMHO :-)
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/) > [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12. > Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs. > > (it may take some time for the site to sync). > Passes all tests with latest perl-framework and with apr-1.3.7 on Mandriva Linux. This email has been processed by SmoothZap - www.smoothwall.net
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jul 20, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/) >> [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12. >> Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs. >> >> (it may take some time for the site to sync). >> > > Hrm... Just 2 binding +1 votes, Rüdiger and myself... Can I get > another Amen?! > I tested on an old Debian Sarge box. Got a bunch of failures, to be honest, but the same failures show up in 2.2.11, so I don't see any regression. +1
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/) > [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12. > Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs. > > (it may take some time for the site to sync). > +1 on AIX 6.1 with XLC. -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Hi, Sander Temme schrieb: > > On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote: > >> Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against >> openssl-1.0.0betaX, >> as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be cleaned. > > Trunk became aware of OpenSSL trunk a while ago... but I don't recall > putting that up for backport. I'll do so when I have come cycles. I've yesterday compiled both HEAD and 2.2.x branch with OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 3, and that went fine - although I have a very picky compiler for NetWare which normally breaks for every type mismatch ... Günter.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Jim Jagielski schrieb: > Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/) > [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12. > Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs. > > (it may take some time for the site to sync). +1 for NetWare no regressions; tested with mod_jk, Perl (CGI), PHP (mod_php), and all served nicely.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Hi, Guenter Knauf schrieb: > Hi, > Sander Temme schrieb: >> On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote: >> >>> Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against >>> openssl-1.0.0betaX, >>> as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be cleaned. >> Trunk became aware of OpenSSL trunk a while ago... but I don't recall >> putting that up for backport. I'll do so when I have come cycles. > I've yesterday compiled both HEAD and 2.2.x branch with OpenSSL 1.0.0 > beta 3, and that went fine - although I have a very picky compiler for > NetWare which normally breaks for every type mismatch ... whoops - I mixed up the include paths; Peter is right - seems that we need to backport these: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=748396 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=749466 Gün.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Nick Kew wrote: > Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >> On Jul 20, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> Available from the usual location (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/) >>> [not for distribution] are the release tarballs for httpd 2.2.12. >>> Vote starts now and runs for ~48hrs. >>> >>> (it may take some time for the site to sync). >>> >>> >> Hrm... Just 2 binding +1 votes, Rüdiger and myself... Can I get >> another Amen?! >> > > Installed it on OpenSolaris, tried the test framework. > Seems most of the latter made no attempt to run. > I have yet to find time to investigate why - hence no > vote yet. > Nick, I installed a few CPAN modules to the stock Perl on OpenSolaris many moons ago (probably just Test::Harness, URI, LWP::Protocol::https, HTTP::DAV, and Bundle::ApacheTest) and the test framework runs pretty well, though there are a handful of tests that fail unexpectedly. Anyway, on OpenSolaris 2009.06 2.2.12 passes more tests than 2.2.11, and doesn't regress any tests w.r.t. 2.2.11, so I'm as happy I can get given the time I have available ;) +1 for release
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Nick Kew wrote: Installed it on OpenSolaris, tried the test framework. Seems most of the latter made no attempt to run. I have yet to find time to investigate why - hence no vote yet. I have the test framework running now: seems what I had before was incomplete. I got a bunch of failures in access.t due to running with a hostname that's not in DNS. If I hack that in t/modules/access.t, all is well. That'll do, so +1. Haven't tested other platforms: those I have at my disposal appear already to be covered. -- Nick Kew
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
I built and tested on Windows XP SP3. There's no Win source download available at /dev/dist yet, but I did the build using the Unix sources. It looks good in principle, so +1 but I have some observations to remark (all tests done with Win32DisableAcceptEx). See especially remark number 5). 1) Rotatelogs now uses cmd.exe (as expected) as an intermediate process between httpd and rotatelogs. 2) There are still independent cmd/rotatelogs processes associated to the parent and to the child. Each configure rotatelogs produces two pairs of processes, cmd+rotatelogs as children of the parent and another cmd/rotatelogs as children of the httpd child process. 3) Restarts recycle all those processes, including the ones attached to the parent. This is true for real restarts as well as for MaxRequestsPerChild induced ones. 4) Most of the times the restart occurs I get a "select" error message. Here's an example: [Sat Jul 25 15:26:07 2009] [notice] Child 5936: Process exiting because it reached MaxRequestsPerChild. Signaling the parent to restart a new child process. [Sat Jul 25 15:26:07 2009] [error] (OS 10022)Ein ungültiges Argument wurde angegeben. : Too many errors in select loop. Child process exiting. (the German message should be something like "Invalid Argument"). [Sat Jul 25 15:26:07 2009] [notice] Apache/2.2.12 (Win32) configured -- resuming normal operations Nevertheless the restart works. 5) Starting a service only works using the ApacheMonitor or the Windows Service Control. Using the commandline httpd.exe I can not start the service. The event log shows: [Sat Jul 25 15:11:03 2009] [notice] Disabled use of AcceptEx() WinSock2 API (OS 10048)Normalerweise darf jede Socketadresse (Protokoll, Netzwerkadresse oder Anschluss) nur jeweils einmal verwendet werden. : make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:8000 no listening sockets available, shutting down Unable to open logs So there's a warning about using IP address or port twice. I did check, that no other process uses the port and starting via ApacheMonitor with the same config is no problem. So I guess (wildly), that we have a bug when starting from the commandline, resulting in the parent and the child both trying to do the bind. I'll see, what I can find out about it, but I would say it's not a blocker, because IMHO most users do not control the service via the commandline interface. Regards, Rainer
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Rainer Jung wrote: 5) Starting a service only works using the ApacheMonitor or the Windows Service Control. Using the commandline httpd.exe I can not start the service. The event log shows: [Sat Jul 25 15:11:03 2009] [notice] Disabled use of AcceptEx() WinSock2 API (OS 10048)Normalerweise darf jede Socketadresse (Protokoll, Netzwerkadresse oder Anschluss) nur jeweils einmal verwendet werden. : make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:8000 no listening sockets available, shutting down Unable to open logs So there's a warning about using IP address or port twice. I did check, that no other process uses the port and starting via ApacheMonitor with the same config is no problem. So I guess (wildly), that we have a bug when starting from the commandline, resulting in the parent and the child both trying to do the bind. I'll see, what I can find out about it, but I would say it's not a blocker, because IMHO most users do not control the service via the commandline interface. Hmmm... We do. -- Jess Holle
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On 25.07.2009 16:05, Rainer Jung wrote: > 5) Starting a service only works using the ApacheMonitor or the Windows > Service Control. Using the commandline httpd.exe I can not start the > service. The event log shows: > > [Sat Jul 25 15:11:03 2009] [notice] Disabled use of AcceptEx() WinSock2 API > > (OS 10048)Normalerweise darf jede Socketadresse (Protokoll, > Netzwerkadresse oder Anschluss) nur jeweils einmal verwendet werden. : > make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:8000 > > no listening sockets available, shutting down > > Unable to open logs > > So there's a warning about using IP address or port twice. I did check, > that no other process uses the port and starting via ApacheMonitor with > the same config is no problem. So I guess (wildly), that we have a bug > when starting from the commandline, resulting in the parent and the > child both trying to do the bind. Additional logging shows: the commandline process sets up the listeners for itself, and also the service when it tries to start. Regards, Rainer
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Rainer Jung wrote: > On 25.07.2009 16:05, Rainer Jung wrote: >> 5) Starting a service only works using the ApacheMonitor or the Windows >> Service Control. Using the commandline httpd.exe I can not start the >> service. The event log shows: >> >> [Sat Jul 25 15:11:03 2009] [notice] Disabled use of AcceptEx() WinSock2 API >> >> (OS 10048)Normalerweise darf jede Socketadresse (Protokoll, >> Netzwerkadresse oder Anschluss) nur jeweils einmal verwendet werden. : >> make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:8000 >> >> no listening sockets available, shutting down >> >> Unable to open logs >> >> So there's a warning about using IP address or port twice. I did check, >> that no other process uses the port and starting via ApacheMonitor with >> the same config is no problem. So I guess (wildly), that we have a bug >> when starting from the commandline, resulting in the parent and the >> child both trying to do the bind. > > Additional logging shows: the commandline process sets up the listeners > for itself, and also the service when it tries to start. Interesting because I see no similar fault (using 2.2.13-dev and will retest with 2.2.12). How are you invoking httpd.exe? What additional modules had you loaded? (Perhaps one also creates listening sockets?) If you simplify your config to apache httpd shipped modules, is all well again?
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On 25.07.2009 18:36, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Rainer Jung wrote: >> On 25.07.2009 16:05, Rainer Jung wrote: >>> 5) Starting a service only works using the ApacheMonitor or the Windows >>> Service Control. Using the commandline httpd.exe I can not start the >>> service. The event log shows: >>> >>> [Sat Jul 25 15:11:03 2009] [notice] Disabled use of AcceptEx() WinSock2 API >>> >>> (OS 10048)Normalerweise darf jede Socketadresse (Protokoll, >>> Netzwerkadresse oder Anschluss) nur jeweils einmal verwendet werden. : >>> make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:8000 >>> >>> no listening sockets available, shutting down >>> >>> Unable to open logs >>> >>> So there's a warning about using IP address or port twice. I did check, >>> that no other process uses the port and starting via ApacheMonitor with >>> the same config is no problem. So I guess (wildly), that we have a bug >>> when starting from the commandline, resulting in the parent and the >>> child both trying to do the bind. >> Additional logging shows: the commandline process sets up the listeners >> for itself, and also the service when it tries to start. > > Interesting because I see no similar fault (using 2.2.13-dev and will > retest with 2.2.12). How are you invoking httpd.exe? What additional > modules had you loaded? (Perhaps one also creates listening sockets?) > If you simplify your config to apache httpd shipped modules, is all > well again? httpd -k uninstall httpd -k install httpd -k start or httpd -k install myserv httpd -k start myserv Default config except for the disabled acceptex and non-standard port 8000. No 3rd-party modules. I'll happily retest with the official windows source archive and I'm going to narrow it down. I saw that there's not really any difference in the winnt mpm between 11 and 12, so I'll shut down now and come back when I really know the reason. The above remark about the commandline process opening the socket is somehow garbage. It was always like that, but the socket is closed again directly before invoking the service. Give me a little time for analysis before I broadcast more incomplete incomplete explanations. Regards, Rainer
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On 25.07.2009 18:57, Rainer Jung wrote: Oups: > and 12, so I'll shut down now and come back when I really know the shut down -> shut up
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Rainer Jung wrote: > On 25.07.2009 18:36, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> Rainer Jung wrote: >>> On 25.07.2009 16:05, Rainer Jung wrote: 5) Starting a service only works using the ApacheMonitor or the Windows Service Control. Using the commandline httpd.exe I can not start the service. The event log shows: [Sat Jul 25 15:11:03 2009] [notice] Disabled use of AcceptEx() WinSock2 API (OS 10048)Normalerweise darf jede Socketadresse (Protokoll, Netzwerkadresse oder Anschluss) nur jeweils einmal verwendet werden. : make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:8000 no listening sockets available, shutting down Unable to open logs So there's a warning about using IP address or port twice. I did check, that no other process uses the port and starting via ApacheMonitor with the same config is no problem. So I guess (wildly), that we have a bug when starting from the commandline, resulting in the parent and the child both trying to do the bind. >>> Additional logging shows: the commandline process sets up the listeners >>> for itself, and also the service when it tries to start. >> Interesting because I see no similar fault (using 2.2.13-dev and will >> retest with 2.2.12). How are you invoking httpd.exe? What additional >> modules had you loaded? (Perhaps one also creates listening sockets?) >> If you simplify your config to apache httpd shipped modules, is all >> well again? > > httpd -k uninstall > httpd -k install > httpd -k start You -do- understand that the service control manager can be very poor at completing a service removal until the next reboot? There are lots of interesting delays to uninstalling. I presume you -k stop'ed first. It has bitten me more than once. Maybe your "shut down now" comment is a really brilliant idea :) > httpd -k install myserv > httpd -k start myserv I hope you mean -n in there ... Cut and paste would give me more confidence in helping you debug instead of chasing ghosts :) > Default config except for the disabled acceptex and non-standard port > 8000. No 3rd-party modules. I disabled acceptex, as you had (standard port though) on a guess that it might be the difference. I never use the mode and deleted it already from trunk. > I'll happily retest with the official windows source archive and I'm > going to narrow it down. > > I saw that there's not really any difference in the winnt mpm between 11 > and 12, so I'll shut down now and come back when I really know the > reason. The above remark about the commandline process opening the > socket is somehow garbage. It was always like that, but the socket is > closed again directly before invoking the service. Give me a little time > for analysis before I broadcast more incomplete incomplete explanations. Sure thing, will look forward to hearing whatever you discover!
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Still not a complete solution to the puzzle, but some more findings below. On 25.07.2009 20:55, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Rainer Jung wrote: >> On 25.07.2009 18:36, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >>> Rainer Jung wrote: On 25.07.2009 16:05, Rainer Jung wrote: > 5) Starting a service only works using the ApacheMonitor or the Windows > Service Control. Using the commandline httpd.exe I can not start the > service. The event log shows: > > [Sat Jul 25 15:11:03 2009] [notice] Disabled use of AcceptEx() WinSock2 > API > > (OS 10048)Normalerweise darf jede Socketadresse (Protokoll, > Netzwerkadresse oder Anschluss) nur jeweils einmal verwendet werden. : > make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:8000 > > no listening sockets available, shutting down > > Unable to open logs > > So there's a warning about using IP address or port twice. I did check, > that no other process uses the port and starting via ApacheMonitor with > the same config is no problem. So I guess (wildly), that we have a bug > when starting from the commandline, resulting in the parent and the > child both trying to do the bind. Additional logging shows: the commandline process sets up the listeners for itself, and also the service when it tries to start. >>> Interesting because I see no similar fault (using 2.2.13-dev and will >>> retest with 2.2.12). How are you invoking httpd.exe? What additional >>> modules had you loaded? (Perhaps one also creates listening sockets?) >>> If you simplify your config to apache httpd shipped modules, is all >>> well again? >> httpd -k uninstall >> httpd -k install >> httpd -k start > > You -do- understand that the service control manager can be very poor > at completing a service removal until the next reboot? There are lots > of interesting delays to uninstalling. I presume you -k stop'ed first. > It has bitten me more than once. Yes, and since I'm a Unix guy, I do a lot of checking process table and netstat even on Windows. > Maybe your "shut down now" comment is a really brilliant idea :) > >> httpd -k install myserv >> httpd -k start myserv > > I hope you mean -n in there ... Cut and paste would give me more > confidence in helping you debug instead of chasing ghosts :) Sorry, yes "-n myserv". >> Default config except for the disabled acceptex and non-standard port >> 8000. No 3rd-party modules. > > I disabled acceptex, as you had (standard port though) on a guess that > it might be the difference. I never use the mode and deleted it already > from trunk. I tried without Win32DisableAcceptEx. No difference. I need Win32DisableAcceptEx, because otherwise restarts do not work. There is an open GZ about that, but that's a different story. Now the new thing: as I reported before, I was testing rotatelogs, but then when you asked about peculiarities I forgot to mention rotatelogs. And yes: as soon as I throw out rotatelogs, the problem disappears. When I add rotatelogs I can reproduce the problem. It doesn't matter whether I use "|" or the new "||". It doesn't matter whether I use rotatelogs in ErrorLog or CustomLog or both. rotatelogs itself works fine (when starting as a commandline process, or as a service via ApacheMonitor). I added a sleep in winnt_post_config() in the part if (!strcasecmp(signal_arg, "start")) { ... } directly after the closing of the listener sockets and before calling mpm_service_start(ptemp, inst_argc, inst_argv). If I include rotatelogs in the config, then the httpd commandline process doing the start has one rotatelogs child at that point in time, and ProcessExplorer tells me, that the httpd commandline process still has the socket on LISTEN. netstat -ano shows the same result. I checked the return code of apr_socket_close() which is done directly before, but it is APR_SUCCESS. So slowly I'm running out of ideas, why the socket doesn't get closed before starting the service. As soon as I through rotatelogs out of the config, the socket gets closed and thus the service can start. I wonder, whether the socket gets inherited by rotatelogs and thus closing it in the commandline httpd can not effectively close it. But this is just a wild guess, and it doesn't go well with ProcessExplorer and netstat both showing the LISTEN owned by httpd, not by rotatelogs. Can you please try once with rotatelogs? Thanks! Regards, Rainer
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On 26.07.2009 00:41, Rainer Jung wrote: > Now the new thing: as I reported before, I was testing rotatelogs, but > then when you asked about peculiarities I forgot to mention rotatelogs. > > And yes: as soon as I throw out rotatelogs, the problem disappears. When > I add rotatelogs I can reproduce the problem. ... and it's not a regression. I tested with 2.2.8 and 2.2.11 and both show the same problem. Regards, Rainer
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Possible patch would be moving the "start" handling from post config to pre config. That way everything gets easier (we are not establishing listeners and shut them down again shortly after, not establishing rotatelogs etc.). Patch against 2.2 head at http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-service-start.patch or here: Index: mpm_winnt.c === --- mpm_winnt.c (Revision 797857) +++ mpm_winnt.c (Arbeitskopie) @@ -1452,6 +1452,13 @@ apr_cpystrn(ap_coredump_dir, ap_server_root, sizeof(ap_coredump_dir)); +if (!strcasecmp(signal_arg, "start")) { +apr_status_t rv = 0; +rv = mpm_service_start(ptemp, inst_argc, inst_argv); +apr_terminate(); +exit (rv); +} + return OK; } @@ -1494,20 +1501,6 @@ exit(0); } -if (!strcasecmp(signal_arg, "start")) { -ap_listen_rec *lr; - -/* Close the listening sockets. */ -for (lr = ap_listeners; lr; lr = lr->next) { -apr_socket_close(lr->sd); -lr->active = 0; -} -rv = mpm_service_start(ptemp, inst_argc, inst_argv); -apr_pool_destroy(s->process->pool); -apr_terminate(); -exit (rv); -} - if (!strcasecmp(signal_arg, "restart")) { mpm_signal_service(ptemp, 1); apr_pool_destroy(s->process->pool);
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Rainer Jung wrote: >> You -do- understand that the service control manager can be very poor >> at completing a service removal until the next reboot? There are lots >> of interesting delays to uninstalling. I presume you -k stop'ed first. >> It has bitten me more than once. > > Yes, and since I'm a Unix guy, I do a lot of checking process table and > netstat even on Windows. That isn't what I was saying. In many cases win32 does not remove the various service registry (or memory-persistent) details of a previously existing service until after reboot. I wasn't really addressing any running services. Another example of Win32 bogosity is the necessity to reboot for a service to pick up global envvar changes. > Now the new thing: as I reported before, I was testing rotatelogs, but > then when you asked about peculiarities I forgot to mention rotatelogs. > > And yes: as soon as I throw out rotatelogs, the problem disappears. When > I add rotatelogs I can reproduce the problem. Very interesting, I will try to create a repro case. > It doesn't matter whether I use "|" or the new "||". It doesn't matter > whether I use rotatelogs in ErrorLog or CustomLog or both. Note that || and |$ have not yet been backported. > rotatelogs itself works fine (when starting as a commandline process, or > as a service via ApacheMonitor). > > I added a sleep in winnt_post_config() in the part > > if (!strcasecmp(signal_arg, "start")) { > ... > } > > directly after the closing of the listener sockets and before calling > mpm_service_start(ptemp, inst_argc, inst_argv). > > If I include rotatelogs in the config, then the httpd commandline > process doing the start has one rotatelogs child at that point in time, > and ProcessExplorer tells me, that the httpd commandline process still > has the socket on LISTEN. netstat -ano shows the same result. > > I checked the return code of apr_socket_close() which is done directly > before, but it is APR_SUCCESS. So slowly I'm running out of ideas, why > the socket doesn't get closed before starting the service. > > As soon as I through rotatelogs out of the config, the socket gets > closed and thus the service can start. > > I wonder, whether the socket gets inherited by rotatelogs and thus > closing it in the commandline httpd can not effectively close it. But > this is just a wild guess, and it doesn't go well with ProcessExplorer > and netstat both showing the LISTEN owned by httpd, not by rotatelogs. > > Can you please try once with rotatelogs? Thanks for the tremendously detailed description :) Will work from this.
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On 26.07.2009 09:54, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> It doesn't matter whether I use "|" or the new "||". It doesn't matter >> whether I use rotatelogs in ErrorLog or CustomLog or both. > > Note that || and |$ have not yet been backported. It was done with the following backport: r777193 | jim | 2009-05-21 19:31:52 +0200 (Thu, 21. May 2009) | 10 lines and is also documented in the 2.2.12 changed I also tested it successfuly ;) >> Can you please try once with rotatelogs? > > Thanks for the tremendously detailed description :) Will work from this. Thanks. I'll test on some other Windows system (Win 2K3). The patch I mentioned does fix it on my machine and makes the code path used by "httpd -k start" quite a bit more simple. Important: It's not a regression, so I'm still +1 for the release. Regards, Rainer
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Rainer Jung wrote: > On 26.07.2009 09:54, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >>> It doesn't matter whether I use "|" or the new "||". It doesn't matter >>> whether I use rotatelogs in ErrorLog or CustomLog or both. >> Note that || and |$ have not yet been backported. > > It was done with the following backport: > > r777193 | jim | 2009-05-21 19:31:52 +0200 (Thu, 21. May 2009) | 10 lines > > and is also documented in the 2.2.12 changed I also tested it successfuly ;) LOL - that's terrific ... May seems like a year ago already. Has it been that long since 2.2.11 shipped? We really aught to get our act together with the whole "release early, release often" mantra, or we'll prove Roy right that progress is absent :) >>> Can you please try once with rotatelogs? >> Thanks for the tremendously detailed description :) Will work from this. > > Thanks. I'll test on some other Windows system (Win 2K3). > > The patch I mentioned does fix it on my machine and makes the code path > used by "httpd -k start" quite a bit more simple. > > Important: It's not a regression, so I'm still +1 for the release. Agreed, I'm simply trying to understand how you are seeing things that I don't (or at least, hadn't) :)
Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: LOL - that's terrific ... May seems like a year ago already. Has it been that long since 2.2.11 shipped? We really aught to get our act together December it was, release often is pointless unless it has serious security major exploit bug fixes, or a seriously new universally wanted feature. Release often projects tend to need 15 times more bug fixes because release often, far far far more often than not, means not enough QC and careless coding. -- Res -Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers
[FINAL] Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
All looks good! Plenty of both binding and non-binding +1s and not a -1 to be found. I will start the process of releasing 2.2.12!
Re: [FINAL] Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > All looks good! Plenty of both binding and non-binding > +1s and not a -1 to be found. > > I will start the process of releasing 2.2.12! > I have upgraded www.apache.org to 2.2.12, yell if you see anything odd :) Thanks, Paul
Re: [FINAL] Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Once all syncs, I'll refresh the main site and announce... On Jul 27, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Paul Querna wrote: On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: All looks good! Plenty of both binding and non-binding +1s and not a -1 to be found. I will start the process of releasing 2.2.12! I have upgraded www.apache.org to 2.2.12, yell if you see anything odd :) Thanks, Paul
Re: [FINAL] Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
*Still* waiting for the sync between people and www httpd.apache.org hasn't slurped up the updates yet (eg: index.html) On Jul 27, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: All looks good! Plenty of both binding and non-binding +1s and not a -1 to be found. I will start the process of releasing 2.2.12!
Re: [FINAL] Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs
Jim, Jim Jagielski schrieb: > *Still* waiting for the sync between people and www > httpd.apache.org hasn't slurped up the updates yet (eg: index.html) the announcement at: http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/Announcement2.2.html reads: ... A condensed list, CHANGES_2.2.12 provides the complete list of changes since 2.2.10. while: http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/CHANGES_2.2.12 seems to list only the changes since 2.2.11 ... Also there appears another 'in the previous 2.2.10 and earlier releases' in Announcement2.2.html. Gün.
OpenSSL 1.0.0 (was: Re: [VOTE] httpd 2.2.12 tarballs)
> Guenter Knauf schrieb: >> Hi, >> Sander Temme schrieb: >>> On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote: >>> Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against openssl-1.0.0betaX, as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be cleaned. >>> Trunk became aware of OpenSSL trunk a while ago... but I don't recall >>> putting that up for backport. I'll do so when I have come cycles. >> I've yesterday compiled both HEAD and 2.2.x branch with OpenSSL 1.0.0 >> beta 3, and that went fine - although I have a very picky compiler for >> NetWare which normally breaks for every type mismatch ... > whoops - I mixed up the include paths; Peter is right - seems that we > need to backport these: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=748396 > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=749466 based on the above HEAD patches here's a 2.2.x branch patch: http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/openssl-1.x-2.2.x.diff please check and test if I catched all - I've tested on NetWare with OpenSSL 0.9.7m, 0.9.8k and 1.0.0 beta3, and that went fine. If nobody objects I'll propose this for backport. Gün.