Re: Time for 2.4.24!

[Greg Ames]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:06 AM Eric Covener  wrote:

> Trying to look at the event stuff and the strict stuff.
>
> If any more experienced event folks are lurking, help on the review
> would be great (And thanks to sf!)
>

This lurker isn't up to doing a full on line-by-line review.  But I will
take the bait and make some observations:

* I am a huge sf fan.  Wish he had been around in the 2.0 beta and early
event development days.

* What I see here http://apache.org/server-status and here
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53555 reinforces the above.

* The scoreboard "squatting" code was one of the ugliest warts I ever had
the displeasure to try to band-aid.  Good riddance.

* Test cases rock!  Hopefully we've got some that can run big workloads
with both normal and very long running requests, plus MPM tuning parameters
to intentionally make it thrash processes.

How did squatting come about?  The 2.0 threaded MPM simply took 1.3's one
dimensional array data structure for the scoreboard and turned it into a
two dimensional flat array.  Ops!  Design discussions of doing a more
sophisticated scoreboard data structure were squashed by someone with a
proprietary module which walked the scoreboard.  The threaded MPM also in
inherited 1.3's management of numbers of workers, and just translated it
from worker processes into worker threads.

Then we started hitting "scoreboard full" errors with mixtures of fast and
slw requests, a la PR 53555, and squatting was born.  The threaded MPM
became the worker MPM which evolved into event, and you know the rest.

* What about worker?  It's got a scoreboard full / squatting problem too.
I'd say either patch it too,or just phase it out.  Maybe y'all have already
decided on the latter.  If not, it is trivial to make event behave like
worker, controlled by a config directive if you feel that's necessary.  I
believe the code is in ap_process_async_connection. I *really* regret not
doing that in the first event patch I posted to this list.  Que sera, sera.

Enough ranting.

Greg Ames

Re: Time for 2.4.24!

[William A Rowe Jr]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

> hello? hello? Anyone there? :)
>
> > On Nov 21, 2016, at 7:47 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> >
> > We have a few items in STATUS that, imo, should be tested, voted-on
> > and the committed to the httpd-2.4 branch in anticipation of a new
> > release SOON!
>

+1. There is a proposed mitigation of the many security defects intrinsic
in HTTP server implementations sitting in STATUS with one vote, I'd think
the project would want to correct this and any undisclosed vulnerabilities
in the queue prior to T Sooner, the better.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: Time for 2.4.24!

[William A Rowe Jr]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Eric Covener  wrote:

> Trying to look at the event stuff and the strict stuff.
>
> If any more experienced event folks are lurking, help on the review
> would be great (And thanks to sf!)
>

I found the PR itself to be full of useful data for review (including some
reporters' test results against the proposed patches).

Re: Time for 2.4.24!

[Eric Covener]

Trying to look at the event stuff and the strict stuff.

If any more experienced event folks are lurking, help on the review
would be great (And thanks to sf!)

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> hello? hello? Anyone there? :)
>
>> On Nov 21, 2016, at 7:47 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>
>> We have a few items in STATUS that, imo, should be tested, voted-on
>> and the committed to the httpd-2.4 branch in anticipation of a new
>> release SOON! I'd like to have a T the end of next week, if
>> possible so we can start off December (or be close to "starting
>> it off") with a new release for the community.
>>
>> I'll RM.
>



-- 
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com

Re: Time for 2.4.24!

[Stefan Eissing]

Don't look at me! Have my hands full with h2 stuff... ;-)

> Am 01.12.2016 um 15:28 schrieb Jim Jagielski :
> 
> hello? hello? Anyone there? :)
> 
>> On Nov 21, 2016, at 7:47 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>> We have a few items in STATUS that, imo, should be tested, voted-on
>> and the committed to the httpd-2.4 branch in anticipation of a new
>> release SOON! I'd like to have a T the end of next week, if
>> possible so we can start off December (or be close to "starting
>> it off") with a new release for the community.
>> 
>> I'll RM.
>