RE: AW: Time for 2.4.11

[Lu, Yingqi]

Hi All,

I just want to check if there is any feedback on this? 2.4.12 T&R will be 
opened tomorrow, it would be great to get your feedback soon.

Thanks,
Lucy

-Original Message-
From: Lu, Yingqi [mailto:yingqi...@intel.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 4:32 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: RE: AW: Time for 2.4.11

Hi All,

Sorry for the delay. Below is a draft version of the documentation on 
"ListenCoresBucketsRatio". Please chime in with your feedback and comments. 
This is my first time to help on the documentation. Please let me know if this 
is sufficient or I need to follow some specific format.

Also, the 2.4 backports of the SO_REUSPORT patch has already been proposed at 
http://svn.apache.org/r1651967. This also includes the link to the 2.4 version 
of the patch. Thanks very much to Yann Ylavic for his help! Everyone, please 
take some time to review this patch and let me know your feedback and comments. 
If you like it, please give us a positive vote for it to be added in 2.4.12.

ListenCoresBucketsRatio Directive

Description: Enables duplicated listener (to use SO_REUSEPORT) feature
Syntax: ListenCoresBucketsRatio num
Default:ListenCoresBucketsRatio 0
Context: server config
Status: Core
Module: core
The SO_REUPOSTPORT feature introduced in Linux kernel 3.9 enables multiple 
sockets to listen to the same IP:port and automatically round robins 
connections. ListenCoresBucketsRatio is the configuration directive that sets 
the ratio between number of active CPU threads and number of listener buckets. 
For each of the listen bucket, there will be 1 listener and 1 accept mutex 
assigned. Default value of ListenCoresBucketsRatio is 0 which means there is 
only 1 listener bucket so that there is 1 listener and 1 accept mutex. When it 
is set to between 1 and number of active CPU threads, Apache httpd will first 
check if the SO_REUSEPORT feature is supported in the kernel. If yes, the 
number of listener buckets will be calculated as "total number of active CPU 
threads/ ListenCoresBucketsRatio". In some testing cases, especially on big 
core count systems, enabling this feature (set it non-zero) has been tested to 
show significant performance improvement with response time reductions. 

When ListenCoresBucketsRatio is set to non-zero, Apache httpd checks on the 
StartServers/ MinSpareServers/ MaxSpareServers/ MinSpareThreads/ 
MaxSpareThreads directives and make sure there is always at least 1 httpd 
process per listener bucket. You may need to tune these directives based on 
your own environment, a good starting point is to start httpd with 2-4 
processes per listener bucket (for example StartServers = 2 * number of 
listener bucket), keep at least 1 of them idle. You can increase the values 
later if needed.

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Lu, Yingqi [mailto:yingqi...@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 9:39 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: RE: AW: Time for 2.4.11

Hi Yann,

Thanks very much for your help! 

Yes, I think I can help to document the "ListenCoresBucketsRatio", at least to 
draft it. Also, I think I can share the settings from our testing regarding to 
this work.

I will send them later this week.

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 2:06 AM
To: httpd
Subject: Re: AW: Time for 2.4.11

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Yann Ylavic  wrote:
>
> There is still missing the "ListenCoresBucketsRatio" documentation, 
> and I don't think I can do it today, could you?

Also, would you share maybe some recommended settings 
({Min,Max}Spare*,ServerLimit, StartServer, ...) wrt bucketing and this new 
directive?

I did some testing (though with linux-3.14, and httpd-2.2.x backport of the 
patch), and it seems it really helps the scalability (at the limits).
And I did not notice any special dysfunctioning either, including during 
(graceful) restarts.
So +1 for me.

But, since the patch is quite big, it may be hard for reviewers to (in)validate 
today (thurs here, which seems to be the T&R date).
So maybe we can take more time for this (with a patch already available for 
those who care) and wait until 2.4.12 (next next)?
What do you (reviewers) think?

Thanks,
Yann.

RE: AW: Time for 2.4.11

[Lu, Yingqi]

Hi All,

Sorry for the delay. Below is a draft version of the documentation on 
"ListenCoresBucketsRatio". Please chime in with your feedback and comments. 
This is my first time to help on the documentation. Please let me know if this 
is sufficient or I need to follow some specific format.

Also, the 2.4 backports of the SO_REUSPORT patch has already been proposed at 
http://svn.apache.org/r1651967. This also includes the link to the 2.4 version 
of the patch. Thanks very much to Yann Ylavic for his help! Everyone, please 
take some time to review this patch and let me know your feedback and comments. 
If you like it, please give us a positive vote for it to be added in 2.4.12.

ListenCoresBucketsRatio Directive

Description: Enables duplicated listener (to use SO_REUSEPORT) feature
Syntax: ListenCoresBucketsRatio num
Default:ListenCoresBucketsRatio 0
Context: server config
Status: Core
Module: core
The SO_REUPOSTPORT feature introduced in Linux kernel 3.9 enables multiple 
sockets to listen to the same IP:port and automatically round robins 
connections. ListenCoresBucketsRatio is the configuration directive that sets 
the ratio between number of active CPU threads and number of listener buckets. 
For each of the listen bucket, there will be 1 listener and 1 accept mutex 
assigned. Default value of ListenCoresBucketsRatio is 0 which means there is 
only 1 listener bucket so that there is 1 listener and 1 accept mutex. When it 
is set to between 1 and number of active CPU threads, Apache httpd will first 
check if the SO_REUSEPORT feature is supported in the kernel. If yes, the 
number of listener buckets will be calculated as "total number of active CPU 
threads/ ListenCoresBucketsRatio". In some testing cases, especially on big 
core count systems, enabling this feature (set it non-zero) has been tested to 
show significant performance improvement with response time reductions. 

When ListenCoresBucketsRatio is set to non-zero, Apache httpd checks on the 
StartServers/ MinSpareServers/ MaxSpareServers/ MinSpareThreads/ 
MaxSpareThreads directives and make sure there is always at least 1 httpd 
process per listener bucket. You may need to tune these directives based on 
your own environment, a good starting point is to start httpd with 2-4 
processes per listener bucket (for example StartServers = 2 * number of 
listener bucket), keep at least 1 of them idle. You can increase the values 
later if needed.

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Lu, Yingqi [mailto:yingqi...@intel.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 9:39 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: RE: AW: Time for 2.4.11

Hi Yann,

Thanks very much for your help! 

Yes, I think I can help to document the "ListenCoresBucketsRatio", at least to 
draft it. Also, I think I can share the settings from our testing regarding to 
this work.

I will send them later this week.

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 2:06 AM
To: httpd
Subject: Re: AW: Time for 2.4.11

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Yann Ylavic  wrote:
>
> There is still missing the "ListenCoresBucketsRatio" documentation, 
> and I don't think I can do it today, could you?

Also, would you share maybe some recommended settings 
({Min,Max}Spare*,ServerLimit, StartServer, ...) wrt bucketing and this new 
directive?

I did some testing (though with linux-3.14, and httpd-2.2.x backport of the 
patch), and it seems it really helps the scalability (at the limits).
And I did not notice any special dysfunctioning either, including during 
(graceful) restarts.
So +1 for me.

But, since the patch is quite big, it may be hard for reviewers to (in)validate 
today (thurs here, which seems to be the T&R date).
So maybe we can take more time for this (with a patch already available for 
those who care) and wait until 2.4.12 (next next)?
What do you (reviewers) think?

Thanks,
Yann.

RE: Time for 2.4.11

[Lu, Yingqi]

Thanks for this information and all the help! I will ping you back when 2.4.12 
window opens :-)

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 9:52 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11

I try to do a release every 3-4 months, but this one lagged behind.

> On Jan 15, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Lu, Yingqi  wrote:
> 
> By the way, do you have an estimate on when is the 2.4.12? 
> 
> I guess I will ping you back when the window opens for 2.4.12!
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingqi
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Lu, Yingqi
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 9:39 AM
> To: httpd
> Subject: RE: AW: Time for 2.4.11
> 
> Hi Yann,
> 
> Thanks very much for your help! 
> 
> Yes, I think I can help to document the "ListenCoresBucketsRatio", at least 
> to draft it. Also, I think I can share the settings from our testing 
> regarding to this work.
> 
> I will send them later this week.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingqi
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 2:06 AM
> To: httpd
> Subject: Re: AW: Time for 2.4.11
> 
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Yann Ylavic  wrote:
>> 
>> There is still missing the "ListenCoresBucketsRatio" documentation, 
>> and I don't think I can do it today, could you?
> 
> Also, would you share maybe some recommended settings 
> ({Min,Max}Spare*,ServerLimit, StartServer, ...) wrt bucketing and this new 
> directive?
> 
> I did some testing (though with linux-3.14, and httpd-2.2.x backport of the 
> patch), and it seems it really helps the scalability (at the limits).
> And I did not notice any special dysfunctioning either, including during 
> (graceful) restarts.
> So +1 for me.
> 
> But, since the patch is quite big, it may be hard for reviewers to 
> (in)validate today (thurs here, which seems to be the T&R date).
> So maybe we can take more time for this (with a patch already available for 
> those who care) and wait until 2.4.12 (next next)?
> What do you (reviewers) think?
> 
> Thanks,
> Yann.

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Jim Jagielski]

I try to do a release every 3-4 months, but this one
lagged behind.

> On Jan 15, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Lu, Yingqi  wrote:
> 
> By the way, do you have an estimate on when is the 2.4.12? 
> 
> I guess I will ping you back when the window opens for 2.4.12!
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingqi
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Lu, Yingqi 
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 9:39 AM
> To: httpd
> Subject: RE: AW: Time for 2.4.11
> 
> Hi Yann,
> 
> Thanks very much for your help! 
> 
> Yes, I think I can help to document the "ListenCoresBucketsRatio", at least 
> to draft it. Also, I think I can share the settings from our testing 
> regarding to this work.
> 
> I will send them later this week.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingqi
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 2:06 AM
> To: httpd
> Subject: Re: AW: Time for 2.4.11
> 
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Yann Ylavic  wrote:
>> 
>> There is still missing the "ListenCoresBucketsRatio" documentation, 
>> and I don't think I can do it today, could you?
> 
> Also, would you share maybe some recommended settings 
> ({Min,Max}Spare*,ServerLimit, StartServer, ...) wrt bucketing and this new 
> directive?
> 
> I did some testing (though with linux-3.14, and httpd-2.2.x backport of the 
> patch), and it seems it really helps the scalability (at the limits).
> And I did not notice any special dysfunctioning either, including during 
> (graceful) restarts.
> So +1 for me.
> 
> But, since the patch is quite big, it may be hard for reviewers to 
> (in)validate today (thurs here, which seems to be the T&R date).
> So maybe we can take more time for this (with a patch already available for 
> those who care) and wait until 2.4.12 (next next)?
> What do you (reviewers) think?
> 
> Thanks,
> Yann.

RE: AW: Time for 2.4.11

[Lu, Yingqi]

By the way, do you have an estimate on when is the 2.4.12? 

I guess I will ping you back when the window opens for 2.4.12!

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Lu, Yingqi 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 9:39 AM
To: httpd
Subject: RE: AW: Time for 2.4.11

Hi Yann,

Thanks very much for your help! 

Yes, I think I can help to document the "ListenCoresBucketsRatio", at least to 
draft it. Also, I think I can share the settings from our testing regarding to 
this work.

I will send them later this week.

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 2:06 AM
To: httpd
Subject: Re: AW: Time for 2.4.11

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Yann Ylavic  wrote:
>
> There is still missing the "ListenCoresBucketsRatio" documentation, 
> and I don't think I can do it today, could you?

Also, would you share maybe some recommended settings 
({Min,Max}Spare*,ServerLimit, StartServer, ...) wrt bucketing and this new 
directive?

I did some testing (though with linux-3.14, and httpd-2.2.x backport of the 
patch), and it seems it really helps the scalability (at the limits).
And I did not notice any special dysfunctioning either, including during 
(graceful) restarts.
So +1 for me.

But, since the patch is quite big, it may be hard for reviewers to (in)validate 
today (thurs here, which seems to be the T&R date).
So maybe we can take more time for this (with a patch already available for 
those who care) and wait until 2.4.12 (next next)?
What do you (reviewers) think?

Thanks,
Yann.

RE: AW: Time for 2.4.11

[Lu, Yingqi]

Hi Yann,

Thanks very much for your help! 

Yes, I think I can help to document the "ListenCoresBucketsRatio", at least to 
draft it. Also, I think I can share the settings from our testing regarding to 
this work.

I will send them later this week.

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 2:06 AM
To: httpd
Subject: Re: AW: Time for 2.4.11

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Yann Ylavic  wrote:
>
> There is still missing the "ListenCoresBucketsRatio" documentation, 
> and I don't think I can do it today, could you?

Also, would you share maybe some recommended settings 
({Min,Max}Spare*,ServerLimit, StartServer, ...) wrt bucketing and this new 
directive?

I did some testing (though with linux-3.14, and httpd-2.2.x backport of the 
patch), and it seems it really helps the scalability (at the limits).
And I did not notice any special dysfunctioning either, including during 
(graceful) restarts.
So +1 for me.

But, since the patch is quite big, it may be hard for reviewers to (in)validate 
today (thurs here, which seems to be the T&R date).
So maybe we can take more time for this (with a patch already available for 
those who care) and wait until 2.4.12 (next next)?
What do you (reviewers) think?

Thanks,
Yann.

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Jim Jagielski]

Expect the T&R around 3pm eastern.

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Jacob Perkins]

Thanks for the confirmation and the changes link!

—
Jacob Perkins
Product Owner
cPanel Inc.

jacob.perk...@cpanel.net 
Office:  713-529-0800 x 4046
Cell:  713-560-8655

> On Jan 15, 2015, at 8:44 AM, Eric Covener  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Jacob Perkins  
> wrote:
>> I haven’t seen an update through Bugzilla, and I was wondering if this got
>> in for 2.4.11:  https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55910
> 
> This is "long continuation lines broken" and it is queued up for 2.4.11
> 
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/CHANGES?view=markup



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Eric Covener]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Jacob Perkins  wrote:
> I haven’t seen an update through Bugzilla, and I was wondering if this got
> in for 2.4.11:  https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55910

This is "long continuation lines broken" and it is queued up for 2.4.11

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/CHANGES?view=markup

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Jacob Perkins]

Good morning Jim!

I haven’t seen an update through Bugzilla, and I was wondering if this got in 
for 2.4.11:  https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55910 


Thanks for your time!
—
Jacob Perkins
Product Owner
cPanel Inc.

jacob.perk...@cpanel.net 
Office:  713-529-0800 x 4046
Cell:  713-560-8655

> On Jan 15, 2015, at 6:24 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> At this point, I think we are ready... the remaining
> proposed backports lack sufficient votes to be folded in
> and/or new enough, or large enough, to make inclusion at
> this stage too risky.
> 
> For the next few hours, if you have time, test the heck out
> of the 2.4 branch, since I'll T&R it later on today.
> 
> Thx!!



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Jim Jagielski]

At this point, I think we are ready... the remaining
proposed backports lack sufficient votes to be folded in
and/or new enough, or large enough, to make inclusion at
this stage too risky.

For the next few hours, if you have time, test the heck out
of the 2.4 branch, since I'll T&R it later on today.

Thx!!

Re: AW: Time for 2.4.11

[Noel Butler]

 

On 15/01/2015 20:06, Yann Ylavic wrote: 

> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Yann Ylavic  wrote:
> 
>> There is still missing the "ListenCoresBucketsRatio" documentation, and I 
>> don't think I can do it today, could you?
> 
> Also, would you share maybe some recommended settings
> ({Min,Max}Spare*,ServerLimit, StartServer, ...) wrt bucketing and this
> new directive?
> 
> I did some testing (though with linux-3.14, and httpd-2.2.x backport
> of the patch), and it seems it really helps the scalability (at the
> limits).
> And I did not notice any special dysfunctioning either, including
> during (graceful) restarts.
> So +1 for me.
> 
> But, since the patch is quite big, it may be hard for reviewers to
> (in)validate today (thurs here, which seems to be the T&R date).
> So maybe we can take more time for this (with a patch already
> available for those who care) and wait until 2.4.12 (next next)?
> What do you (reviewers) think?
> 
> Thanks,
> Yann.

I'd agree, something not extensively tested with 2.4.11 should not be
included in 2.4.11 

Re: AW: Time for 2.4.11

[Yann Ylavic]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Yann Ylavic  wrote:
>
> There is still missing the "ListenCoresBucketsRatio" documentation,
> and I don't think I can do it today, could you?

Also, would you share maybe some recommended settings
({Min,Max}Spare*,ServerLimit, StartServer, ...) wrt bucketing and this
new directive?

I did some testing (though with linux-3.14, and httpd-2.2.x backport
of the patch), and it seems it really helps the scalability (at the
limits).
And I did not notice any special dysfunctioning either, including
during (graceful) restarts.
So +1 for me.

But, since the patch is quite big, it may be hard for reviewers to
(in)validate today (thurs here, which seems to be the T&R date).
So maybe we can take more time for this (with a patch already
available for those who care) and wait until 2.4.12 (next next)?
What do you (reviewers) think?

Thanks,
Yann.

Re: AW: Time for 2.4.11

[Yann Ylavic]

Hi Yingqi,

backport (with 2.4.x patch) proposed in http://svn.apache.org/r1651967
Sorry to no have done this before, I did not have the time these days.

There is still missing the "ListenCoresBucketsRatio" documentation,
and I don't think I can do it today, could you?

Regards,
Yann.


On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Lu, Yingqi  wrote:
> Ok, I will send them in the morning.
>
> Thanks,
> Yingqi
>
>> On Jan 14, 2015, at 11:53 PM, "Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group" 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> All of them are needed.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Rüdiger
>>
>>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>>> Von: Lu, Yingqi [mailto:yingqi...@intel.com]
>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. Januar 2015 08:12
>>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>> Betreff: RE: Time for 2.4.11
>>>
>>> Hi Jim,
>>>
>>> I just checked and found the most recent commits regarding to
>>> "SO_REUSEPORT" patch work is done on Dec 4, 2014 with trunk version
>>> 1643179. There are also other commits done on this patch work as well.
>>> Please let me know if you need commits ID from all of them or the most
>>> recent one is good enough. I can help you find if you want.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yingqi
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Lu, Yingqi [mailto:yingqi...@intel.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:35 PM
>>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: Time for 2.4.11
>>>
>>> Hi Jim,
>>>
>>> Thanks very much for your replies. I do not think there is a 2.4
>>> backport patch available. All my previous work are on top of the trunk
>>> version. However, I think you may be able to apply the svn commits on
>>> 2.4 since the work is pretty much self-contained.
>>>
>>> Please let me know if that works for you.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yingqi Lu
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:07 PM
>>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11
>>>
>>> I haven't had time to check... is there an actual 2.4 backport patch
>>> available, or do I need to craft one (or do the svn commits apply
>>> cleanly)??
>>>> On Jan 14, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Lu, Yingqi  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just want to check what the status on the "SO_REUSEPORT" patch is.
>>> Do you see any issues backport it? Please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Attached is the email I sent last week on the same topic in case you
>>> missed that.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Yingqi
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:54 AM
>>>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11
>>>>
>>>> Get your backports into STATUS now, and test and vote on the existing
>>> (and to-be-entered) proposals asap!
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 13, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Okey dokey... the idea is a T&R on Thurs with a release next
>>> Mon/Tues.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me warm :)
>>>>
>>>> 
>>

Re: AW: Time for 2.4.11

[Lu, Yingqi]

Ok, I will send them in the morning.

Thanks,
Yingqi

> On Jan 14, 2015, at 11:53 PM, "Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group" 
>  wrote:
> 
> All of them are needed.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Rüdiger
> 
>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>> Von: Lu, Yingqi [mailto:yingqi...@intel.com]
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. Januar 2015 08:12
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: RE: Time for 2.4.11
>> 
>> Hi Jim,
>> 
>> I just checked and found the most recent commits regarding to
>> "SO_REUSEPORT" patch work is done on Dec 4, 2014 with trunk version
>> 1643179. There are also other commits done on this patch work as well.
>> Please let me know if you need commits ID from all of them or the most
>> recent one is good enough. I can help you find if you want.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Yingqi
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Lu, Yingqi [mailto:yingqi...@intel.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:35 PM
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Time for 2.4.11
>> 
>> Hi Jim,
>> 
>> Thanks very much for your replies. I do not think there is a 2.4
>> backport patch available. All my previous work are on top of the trunk
>> version. However, I think you may be able to apply the svn commits on
>> 2.4 since the work is pretty much self-contained.
>> 
>> Please let me know if that works for you.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Yingqi Lu
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:07 PM
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11
>> 
>> I haven't had time to check... is there an actual 2.4 backport patch
>> available, or do I need to craft one (or do the svn commits apply
>> cleanly)??
>>> On Jan 14, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Lu, Yingqi  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I just want to check what the status on the "SO_REUSEPORT" patch is.
>> Do you see any issues backport it? Please let me know.
>>> 
>>> Attached is the email I sent last week on the same topic in case you
>> missed that.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yingqi
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:54 AM
>>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11
>>> 
>>> Get your backports into STATUS now, and test and vote on the existing
>> (and to-be-entered) proposals asap!
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 13, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Okey dokey... the idea is a T&R on Thurs with a release next
>> Mon/Tues.
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me warm :)
>>> 
>>> 
> 

AW: Time for 2.4.11

[Plüm , Rüdiger , Vodafone Group]

All of them are needed.

Regards

Rüdiger

> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Lu, Yingqi [mailto:yingqi...@intel.com]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. Januar 2015 08:12
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: RE: Time for 2.4.11
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> I just checked and found the most recent commits regarding to
> "SO_REUSEPORT" patch work is done on Dec 4, 2014 with trunk version
> 1643179. There are also other commits done on this patch work as well.
> Please let me know if you need commits ID from all of them or the most
> recent one is good enough. I can help you find if you want.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingqi
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Lu, Yingqi [mailto:yingqi...@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:35 PM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Time for 2.4.11
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Thanks very much for your replies. I do not think there is a 2.4
> backport patch available. All my previous work are on top of the trunk
> version. However, I think you may be able to apply the svn commits on
> 2.4 since the work is pretty much self-contained.
> 
> Please let me know if that works for you.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingqi Lu
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:07 PM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11
> 
> I haven't had time to check... is there an actual 2.4 backport patch
> available, or do I need to craft one (or do the svn commits apply
> cleanly)??
> > On Jan 14, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Lu, Yingqi  wrote:
> >
> > I just want to check what the status on the "SO_REUSEPORT" patch is.
> Do you see any issues backport it? Please let me know.
> >
> > Attached is the email I sent last week on the same topic in case you
> missed that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yingqi
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:54 AM
> > To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11
> >
> > Get your backports into STATUS now, and test and vote on the existing
> (and to-be-entered) proposals asap!
> >
> >> On Jan 13, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> >>
> >> Okey dokey... the idea is a T&R on Thurs with a release next
> Mon/Tues.
> >>
> >>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me warm :)
> >>
> >
> > 

RE: Time for 2.4.11

[Lu, Yingqi]

Hi Jim,

I just checked and found the most recent commits regarding to "SO_REUSEPORT" 
patch work is done on Dec 4, 2014 with trunk version 1643179. There are also 
other commits done on this patch work as well. Please let me know if you need 
commits ID from all of them or the most recent one is good enough. I can help 
you find if you want.

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Lu, Yingqi [mailto:yingqi...@intel.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:35 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: RE: Time for 2.4.11

Hi Jim,

Thanks very much for your replies. I do not think there is a 2.4 backport patch 
available. All my previous work are on top of the trunk version. However, I 
think you may be able to apply the svn commits on 2.4 since the work is pretty 
much self-contained.

Please let me know if that works for you.

Thanks,
Yingqi Lu 

-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:07 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11

I haven't had time to check... is there an actual 2.4 backport patch available, 
or do I need to craft one (or do the svn commits apply cleanly)??
> On Jan 14, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Lu, Yingqi  wrote:
> 
> I just want to check what the status on the "SO_REUSEPORT" patch is. Do you 
> see any issues backport it? Please let me know.
> 
> Attached is the email I sent last week on the same topic in case you missed 
> that.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingqi
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:54 AM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11
> 
> Get your backports into STATUS now, and test and vote on the existing (and 
> to-be-entered) proposals asap!
> 
>> On Jan 13, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>> Okey dokey... the idea is a T&R on Thurs with a release next Mon/Tues.
>> 
>>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me warm :)
>> 
> 
> 

RE: Time for 2.4.11

[Lu, Yingqi]

Hi Jim,

Thanks very much for your replies. I do not think there is a 2.4 backport patch 
available. All my previous work are on top of the trunk version. However, I 
think you may be able to apply the svn commits on 2.4 since the work is pretty 
much self-contained.

Please let me know if that works for you.

Thanks,
Yingqi Lu 

-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:07 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11

I haven't had time to check... is there an actual 2.4 backport patch available, 
or do I need to craft one (or do the svn commits apply cleanly)??
> On Jan 14, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Lu, Yingqi  wrote:
> 
> I just want to check what the status on the "SO_REUSEPORT" patch is. Do you 
> see any issues backport it? Please let me know.
> 
> Attached is the email I sent last week on the same topic in case you missed 
> that.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingqi
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:54 AM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11
> 
> Get your backports into STATUS now, and test and vote on the existing (and 
> to-be-entered) proposals asap!
> 
>> On Jan 13, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>> Okey dokey... the idea is a T&R on Thurs with a release next Mon/Tues.
>> 
>>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me warm :)
>> 
> 
> 

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Jim Jagielski]

I haven't had time to check... is there an actual 2.4 backport
patch available, or do I need to craft one (or do the svn
commits apply cleanly)??
> On Jan 14, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Lu, Yingqi  wrote:
> 
> I just want to check what the status on the "SO_REUSEPORT" patch is. Do you 
> see any issues backport it? Please let me know.
> 
> Attached is the email I sent last week on the same topic in case you missed 
> that.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingqi
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:54 AM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11
> 
> Get your backports into STATUS now, and test and vote on the existing (and 
> to-be-entered) proposals asap!
> 
>> On Jan 13, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>> Okey dokey... the idea is a T&R on Thurs with a release next Mon/Tues.
>> 
>>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me warm :)
>> 
> 
> 

RE: Time for 2.4.11

[Lu, Yingqi]

Hello,

Someone from this list pointed out that he had issues opening *.msg attachment. 
Now, I re-attach the plain text of the email I sent last week. Hope it works 
for all of you.

I just want to check the status of the "SO_REUSEPORT" patch. Please let me know 
if you have any issues backport it. It has already been trunked for 7 months. 
After several modifications, we think it is ready to go to stable. Also, we 
have completed tests on all the existing 4 MPMs and different usage cases. 
Results look good to us.

Please let me know.

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Lu, Yingqi [mailto:yingqi...@intel.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 9:20 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: RE: Time for 2.4.11

I just want to check what the status on the "SO_REUSEPORT" patch is. Do you see 
any issues backport it? Please let me know.

Attached is the email I sent last week on the same topic in case you missed 
that.

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:54 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11

Get your backports into STATUS now, and test and vote on the existing (and 
to-be-entered) proposals asap!

> On Jan 13, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> Okey dokey... the idea is a T&R on Thurs with a release next Mon/Tues.
> 
>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me warm :)
> 

From:   Lu, Yingqi 
Sent:   Friday, January 09, 2015 9:57 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject:RE: Time for 2.4.11

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your email. I think it should not be very hard to back port. After 
you trunked the original 
patch last June, I was working with Yann Ylavic last November to fix some minor 
issues. With current 
trunked code, there is no major API change to 2.4 version and we have tested 
with multiple workloads 
and usage cases for all 4 existing MPMs. It looks good to us.

Please note, with current code, there is a new configurable flag called 
"ListenCoresBucketsRatio". The 
default value is 0 which means SO_REUSEPORT is disabled. This is different than 
the original patch. The 
reason Yann decided to choose the opt-in way because he finds it safer, 
especially for backports to 
stable. Given this said, I think it would be a good idea to add some document 
to introduce the feature 
and the flag itself. This would allow users to take advantage of this.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Again, thanks very much for the 
help, really appreciated!

The whole work can be followed in three threads with name:
1. "[PATCH ASF bugzilla# 55897]prefork_mpm patch with SO_REUSEPORT support"
2. "svn commit: r1599531 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES include/ap_listen.h 
server/listen.c 
server/mpm/event/event.c server/mpm/prefork/prefork.c 
server/mpm/worker/worker.c 
server/mpm_unix.c"
3. "Listeners buckets and duplication w/ and w/o SO_REUSEPORT on trunk"

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 5:47 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11

Let me look... how easy is the backport?
> On Jan 8, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Lu, Yingqi  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Can we make the "SO_REUSEPORT" support into this new stable version? The 
> first version of the patch 
was trunked last June. After tests and modifications, I think it is ready to go.
> 
> Please let me know what you think.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingqi
> 
> -----Original Message-
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 3:12 AM
> To: httpd
> Subject: Time for 2.4.11
> 
> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me warm :)

RE: Time for 2.4.11

[Lu, Yingqi]

I just want to check what the status on the "SO_REUSEPORT" patch is. Do you see 
any issues backport it? Please let me know.

Attached is the email I sent last week on the same topic in case you missed 
that.

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:54 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11

Get your backports into STATUS now, and test and vote on the existing (and 
to-be-entered) proposals asap!

> On Jan 13, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> Okey dokey... the idea is a T&R on Thurs with a release next Mon/Tues.
> 
>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me warm :)
> 



RE Time for 2.4.11.msg
Description: RE Time for 2.4.11.msg

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Jim Jagielski]

Get your backports into STATUS now, and test and vote
on the existing (and to-be-entered) proposals asap!

> On Jan 13, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> Okey dokey... the idea is a T&R on Thurs with a release
> next Mon/Tues.
> 
>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me
>> warm :)
> 

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Jim Jagielski]

Okey dokey... the idea is a T&R on Thurs with a release
next Mon/Tues.

> On Jan 8, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me
> warm :)

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Micha Lenk]

Hi Jeff,

Am 10.01.2015 18:30, schrieb Jeff Trawick:

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Micha Lenk  wrote:


Hi,

Am 08.01.2015 um 12:11 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me
warm :)


Can we please get another vote on this?

* core: Fix -D[efined] or [d] variables lifetime
accross restarts. PR 57328.
trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1643825 [1]
2.4.x patch: trunk works (module CHANGES)
+1: ylavic, rjung

Thanks for considering,

Micha


now approved for 2.4.11...


Thanks for the update.

I was a bit confused by the commit message of SVN rev. 1651084 not 
matching at all the committed changes, until I realized that the changes 
I want have been committed in SVN rev. 1651083 (using the same commit 
message). Weird...


Best regards,
Micha

RE: Time for 2.4.11

[Lu, Yingqi]

Hi All,

I just want to ping again to see if there is any updates on this?

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Lu, Yingqi [mailto:yingqi...@intel.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 9:57 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: RE: Time for 2.4.11

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your email. I think it should not be very hard to back port. After 
you trunked the original patch last June, I was working with Yann Ylavic last 
November to fix some minor issues. With current trunked code, there is no major 
API change to 2.4 version and we have tested with multiple workloads and usage 
cases for all 4 existing MPMs. It looks good to us.

Please note, with current code, there is a new configurable flag called 
"ListenCoresBucketsRatio". The default value is 0 which means SO_REUSEPORT is 
disabled. This is different than the original patch. The reason Yann decided to 
choose the opt-in way because he finds it safer, especially for backports to 
stable. Given this said, I think it would be a good idea to add some document 
to introduce the feature and the flag itself. This would allow users to take 
advantage of this.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Again, thanks very much for the 
help, really appreciated!

The whole work can be followed in three threads with name:
1. "[PATCH ASF bugzilla# 55897]prefork_mpm patch with SO_REUSEPORT support"
2. "svn commit: r1599531 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES include/ap_listen.h 
server/listen.c server/mpm/event/event.c server/mpm/prefork/prefork.c 
server/mpm/worker/worker.c server/mpm_unix.c"
3. "Listeners buckets and duplication w/ and w/o SO_REUSEPORT on trunk"

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 5:47 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11

Let me look... how easy is the backport?
> On Jan 8, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Lu, Yingqi  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Can we make the "SO_REUSEPORT" support into this new stable version? The 
> first version of the patch was trunked last June. After tests and 
> modifications, I think it is ready to go.
> 
> Please let me know what you think.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingqi
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 3:12 AM
> To: httpd
> Subject: Time for 2.4.11
> 
> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me warm :)

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Jeff Trawick]

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Micha Lenk  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am 08.01.2015 um 12:11 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> > Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me
> > warm :)
>
> Can we please get another vote on this?
>
>  * core: Fix -D[efined] or [d] variables lifetime
>  accross restarts. PR 57328.
>trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1643825
>2.4.x patch: trunk works (module CHANGES)
>+1: ylavic, rjung
>
> Thanks for considering,
>
> Micha
>

now approved for 2.4.11...


-- 
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Micha Lenk]

Hi,

Am 08.01.2015 um 12:11 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me
> warm :)

Can we please get another vote on this?

 * core: Fix -D[efined] or [d] variables lifetime
 accross restarts. PR 57328.
   trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1643825
   2.4.x patch: trunk works (module CHANGES)
   +1: ylavic, rjung

Thanks for considering,

Micha

RE: Time for 2.4.11

[Lu, Yingqi]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your email. I think it should not be very hard to back port. After 
you trunked the original patch last June, I was working with Yann Ylavic last 
November to fix some minor issues. With current trunked code, there is no major 
API change to 2.4 version and we have tested with multiple workloads and usage 
cases for all 4 existing MPMs. It looks good to us.

Please note, with current code, there is a new configurable flag called 
"ListenCoresBucketsRatio". The default value is 0 which means SO_REUSEPORT is 
disabled. This is different than the original patch. The reason Yann decided to 
choose the opt-in way because he finds it safer, especially for backports to 
stable. Given this said, I think it would be a good idea to add some document 
to introduce the feature and the flag itself. This would allow users to take 
advantage of this.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Again, thanks very much for the 
help, really appreciated!

The whole work can be followed in three threads with name:
1. "[PATCH ASF bugzilla# 55897]prefork_mpm patch with SO_REUSEPORT support"
2. "svn commit: r1599531 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES include/ap_listen.h 
server/listen.c server/mpm/event/event.c server/mpm/prefork/prefork.c 
server/mpm/worker/worker.c server/mpm_unix.c"
3. "Listeners buckets and duplication w/ and w/o SO_REUSEPORT on trunk"

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 5:47 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Time for 2.4.11

Let me look... how easy is the backport?
> On Jan 8, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Lu, Yingqi  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Can we make the "SO_REUSEPORT" support into this new stable version? The 
> first version of the patch was trunked last June. After tests and 
> modifications, I think it is ready to go.
> 
> Please let me know what you think.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingqi
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 3:12 AM
> To: httpd
> Subject: Time for 2.4.11
> 
> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me warm :)

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Eric Covener]

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Martynas Bendorius
 wrote:
> And what about https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37564 ? :)

Not likely for the release on the horizon.  A few people would need to
deep-dive into suexec to be able to change it responsibly.

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Martynas Bendorius]

And what about https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37564 ? :)

Best regards,
Martynas Bendorius

On 1/9/15 4:45 PM, Eric Covener wrote:

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Jacob Perkins  wrote:

Any chance we could get this back ported into 2.4 for the 2.4.11 release?

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55910

This is causing us some headaches with our mod_security rollouts.



This one is proposed but needs two more votes.

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Jim Jagielski]

Testing this out as we speak...

> On Jan 9, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Eric Covener  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Jacob Perkins  
> wrote:
>> Any chance we could get this back ported into 2.4 for the 2.4.11 release?
>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55910
>> 
>> This is causing us some headaches with our mod_security rollouts.
> 
> 
> This one is proposed but needs two more votes.
> 
> -- 
> Eric Covener
> cove...@gmail.com

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Eric Covener]

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Jacob Perkins  wrote:
> Any chance we could get this back ported into 2.4 for the 2.4.11 release?
>
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55910
>
> This is causing us some headaches with our mod_security rollouts.


This one is proposed but needs two more votes.

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

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Jacob Perkins]

Good morning!

Any chance we could get this back ported into 2.4 for the 2.4.11 release?

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55910 


This is causing us some headaches with our mod_security rollouts.

Thanks!
—
Jacob Perkins
Product Owner
cPanel Inc.

jacob.perk...@cpanel.net 


> On Jan 8, 2015, at 5:11 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me
> warm :)



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Jim Jagielski]

Let me look... how easy is the backport?
> On Jan 8, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Lu, Yingqi  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Can we make the "SO_REUSEPORT" support into this new stable version? The 
> first version of the patch was trunked last June. After tests and 
> modifications, I think it is ready to go.
> 
> Please let me know what you think.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingqi
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 3:12 AM
> To: httpd
> Subject: Time for 2.4.11
> 
> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me warm :)

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[Jim Jagielski]

Thx. Will do.
> On Jan 8, 2015, at 7:06 AM, olli hauer  wrote:
> 
> On 2015-01-08 12:11, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me
>> warm :)
>> 
> 
> Perhaps you can take a look into this two bug id's:
> 
> - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53824
> contains a corrected fix (use correct '[[1234]].*' instead single '[1234].*' )
> 
> and this one if build with dynamic modules.
> - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53882
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> olli

RE: Time for 2.4.11

[Lu, Yingqi]

Hi All,

Can we make the "SO_REUSEPORT" support into this new stable version? The first 
version of the patch was trunked last June. After tests and modifications, I 
think it is ready to go.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Yingqi

-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 3:12 AM
To: httpd
Subject: Time for 2.4.11

Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me warm :)

Re: Time for 2.4.11

[olli hauer]

On 2015-01-08 12:11, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me
> warm :)
> 

Perhaps you can take a look into this two bug id's:

- https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53824
 contains a corrected fix (use correct '[[1234]].*' instead single '[1234].*' )

and this one if build with dynamic modules.
- https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53882


-- 
Regards,
olli

Time for 2.4.11

[Jim Jagielski]

Let's shoot for a T&R next week. The work will keep me
warm :)