No $r = no mod_perl?
So I'm following your advice and going the easy route of apt-get everything. My original server had this config: Apache/2.2.11 (Ubuntu) mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.10.0 Server And two years later we're at: Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu) mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.10.1 Server Is that really the state of two years of progress in apt-get packages, or did I choose the wrong repository? And so after copying over configs and startups I'm getting this error: Can't call method auth_name on an undefined value at /usr/local/share/perl/5.10.1/Apache2/AuthCookieDBI.pm line 284. Which is: my $auth_name = $r-auth_name; So the fact that $r is undefined tells me that whatever is running is NOT running under mod_perl, is this a valid assessment? Because right now I will have to get into a fight with my sys-admin who will say it's not working because I didn't configure something correctly, but my position is if he apt-gets everything and then copies over the config/startup from the old (working) install then everything *should* work so he's probably left out something. Do you see now why I would prefer to work with a PaaS instead of admins, I don't want to have to deal with this, I just want to write apps. Thanks! Tosh -- McIntosh Cooey - Twelve Hundred Group LLC - http://www.1200group.com/
Re: Re: mod_perl EC2 AMI's or other platform providers?
Mr. Hodgkinson was awesome enough to point out the existence of DotCloud: https://docs.dotcloud.com/#perl.html Looks there like they have a Perl stack available, which is super for the world but not so for me since the stack requires you use PSGI which is a great approach but since I don't require portability I never went that route, oh woe is me... Anyway, it's good to see there's some good Perl options out there for getting rid of my admin(s). Thanks Dave! Tosh On 7/22/64 8:59 PM, Tosh Cooey wrote: The point was, and is, that it's unfortunate that mod_perl developers need to: 1) Build and optimize Apache. 2) Build and optimize MySql. 3) Build and optimize Perl+mod_perl. 4) Build and optimize a Linux server environment. or 5) Have enough money to pay for all of the above. Those are all roadblocks to development, much like your responses are to this discussion. My life would be a different experience if I could pay for six months of your time whenever I wanted to create a new web application. It would be nice to fire up a mod_perl stack somewhere (say EC2) and then just modify startup.pl and install your required modules and go. The dev world is moving away from requiring system administrators and towards more PaaS'. Tosh On 7/5/11 10:48 AM, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: On 5 Jul 2011, at 08:53, Tosh Cooey wrote: On 7/4/11 11:26 PM, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: I'm not happy, hence the complaining about the AMI from 2009. But I'm glad you changed the subject from your first one, which is that I should build my own stack. So basically you are saying (and only you, not a community voice) that in order to be a mod_perl developer one also needs to: 1) Build and optimize Apache. 2) Build and optimize MySql. 3) Build and optimize Perl+mod_perl. 4) Build and optimize a Linux server environment. or 5) Have enough money to pay for all of the above. You have no stack. Make one. Better still, get a bunch of people together with the same problem. Dunno where you'd find 'em. I just spent six months helping a company do exactly[0] this and move off a dated RH platform onto a modern, current, Debian, perl 5.14, all new CPAN modules. You seem to have missed the point of my kvetching, which is perhaps a suitable answer anyway. What was the point? -- McIntosh Cooey - Twelve Hundred Group LLC - http://www.1200group.com/
Re: mod_perl EC2 AMI's or other platform providers?
Also, I believe DotCloud has Miyagawa on board which is a big win IMHO. Legend has it he had perl support shipped two days after joining. Or something. I'm about to put a Catalyst app on it so we'll see how that flies. On 10 Jul 2011, at 11:28, Tosh Cooey wrote: Mr. Hodgkinson was awesome enough to point out the existence of DotCloud: https://docs.dotcloud.com/#perl.html Looks there like they have a Perl stack available, which is super for the world but not so for me since the stack requires you use PSGI which is a great approach but since I don't require portability I never went that route, oh woe is me... Anyway, it's good to see there's some good Perl options out there for getting rid of my admin(s). Thanks Dave! Tosh On 7/22/64 8:59 PM, Tosh Cooey wrote: The point was, and is, that it's unfortunate that mod_perl developers need to: 1) Build and optimize Apache. 2) Build and optimize MySql. 3) Build and optimize Perl+mod_perl. 4) Build and optimize a Linux server environment. or 5) Have enough money to pay for all of the above. Those are all roadblocks to development, much like your responses are to this discussion. My life would be a different experience if I could pay for six months of your time whenever I wanted to create a new web application. It would be nice to fire up a mod_perl stack somewhere (say EC2) and then just modify startup.pl and install your required modules and go. The dev world is moving away from requiring system administrators and towards more PaaS'. Tosh On 7/5/11 10:48 AM, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: On 5 Jul 2011, at 08:53, Tosh Cooey wrote: On 7/4/11 11:26 PM, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: I'm not happy, hence the complaining about the AMI from 2009. But I'm glad you changed the subject from your first one, which is that I should build my own stack. So basically you are saying (and only you, not a community voice) that in order to be a mod_perl developer one also needs to: 1) Build and optimize Apache. 2) Build and optimize MySql. 3) Build and optimize Perl+mod_perl. 4) Build and optimize a Linux server environment. or 5) Have enough money to pay for all of the above. You have no stack. Make one. Better still, get a bunch of people together with the same problem. Dunno where you'd find 'em. I just spent six months helping a company do exactly[0] this and move off a dated RH platform onto a modern, current, Debian, perl 5.14, all new CPAN modules. You seem to have missed the point of my kvetching, which is perhaps a suitable answer anyway. What was the point? -- McIntosh Cooey - Twelve Hundred Group LLC - http://www.1200group.com/
Re: SIGILL on openVZ
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 08:07:05 -0400 Rick Myers r...@jrmyers.net wrote: On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:05:28AM -0400, MK wrote: http://pastebin.com/16SrEzHM The offending instruction is dl_x86_64_save_sse (I don't know any assembly), and it is always from /usr/src/debug/glibc-2.12.2/sysdeps/x86_64/dl-trampoline.S, It appears to be an old glibc problem. Compare your trace with http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?format=multipleid=12113 Yeah. The small reproducer attached to that report does reproduce the problem on the system, which is also Fedora 13 running glibc 2.12. I'll have to ask the provider if they can make an upgrade available. Thanks! -- Enthusiasm is not the enemy of the intellect. (said of Irving Howe) The angel of history[...]is turned toward the past. (Walter Benjamin)
Re: No $r = no mod_perl?
On 7/10/2011 6:08 AM, Tosh Cooey wrote: So I'm following your advice and going the easy route of apt-get everything. My original server had this config: Apache/2.2.11 (Ubuntu) mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.10.0 Server And two years later we're at: Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu) mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.10.1 Server Is that really the state of two years of progress in apt-get packages, or did I choose the wrong repository? And so after copying over configs and startups I'm getting this error: Can't call method auth_name on an undefined value at /usr/local/share/perl/5.10.1/Apache2/AuthCookieDBI.pm line 284. Which is: my $auth_name = $r-auth_name; So the fact that $r is undefined tells me that whatever is running is NOT running under mod_perl, is this a valid assessment? Because right now I will have to get into a fight with my sys-admin who will say it's not working because I didn't configure something correctly, but my position is if he apt-gets everything and then copies over the config/startup from the old (working) install then everything *should* work so he's probably left out something. This does sounds like something in the config didn't get copied over. I believe your stuff runs as registry/perlrun scripts, so that would be the configuration that's missing. Adam
linux glibc and new Sandy Bridge AVX processors
After digging further into my problem with the SIGILL on an openVZ slice -- thanks much Rick Myers for the tip -- I'm trying to find out who, if anyone, is running mod_perl on an AVX enabled hardware. According to wikipedia, the only currently available processor using these extensions is the new Xeon Sandy Bridge. The VPS tech people provided me with a fresh fedora 14 slice using glibc 2.13 for testing, and the problem persists. I don't know how much software this affects -- the only thing I've noticed is mod_perl when using certain modules, such as Apache2::Const or Mouse, and a threaded httpd -- but if it is this underlying glibc issue then anyone else doing the same thing should be having the same problem. Thanks, MK -- Enthusiasm is not the enemy of the intellect. (said of Irving Howe) The angel of history[...]is turned toward the past. (Walter Benjamin)
Re: No $r = no mod_perl?
Maybe you are using the wrong sethandler value for your application, check http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/user/config/config.html#C_GlobalRequest_ If you are using a global $r variable you should specify SetHandler perl-script and not SetHandler modperl Using the latter you get the $r variable as an argument to your handler-sub. Hendrik Am So, 10.07.2011, 12:08 schrieb Tosh Cooey: So I'm following your advice and going the easy route of apt-get everything. My original server had this config: Apache/2.2.11 (Ubuntu) mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.10.0 Server And two years later we're at: Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu) mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.10.1 Server Is that really the state of two years of progress in apt-get packages, or did I choose the wrong repository? And so after copying over configs and startups I'm getting this error: Can't call method auth_name on an undefined value at /usr/local/share/perl/5.10.1/Apache2/AuthCookieDBI.pm line 284. Which is: my $auth_name = $r-auth_name; So the fact that $r is undefined tells me that whatever is running is NOT running under mod_perl, is this a valid assessment? Because right now I will have to get into a fight with my sys-admin who will say it's not working because I didn't configure something correctly, but my position is if he apt-gets everything and then copies over the config/startup from the old (working) install then everything *should* work so he's probably left out something. Do you see now why I would prefer to work with a PaaS instead of admins, I don't want to have to deal with this, I just want to write apps. Thanks! Tosh -- McIntosh Cooey - Twelve Hundred Group LLC - http://www.1200group.com/
Re: No $r = no mod_perl?
Do you have a configuration similar to this in httpd.conf: Directory /www/domain.com/authcookiedbi AuthType Apache2::AuthCookieDBI AuthName WhatEver PerlAuthenHandler Apache2::AuthCookieDBI-authenticate PerlAuthzHandler Apache2::AuthCookieDBI-authorize require valid-user # or you can require users: require user jacob # You can optionally require groups. require group system /Directory On Jul 10, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Adam Prime adam.pr...@utoronto.ca wrote: On 7/10/2011 6:08 AM, Tosh Cooey wrote: So I'm following your advice and going the easy route of apt-get everything. My original server had this config: Apache/2.2.11 (Ubuntu) mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.10.0 Server And two years later we're at: Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu) mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.10.1 Server Is that really the state of two years of progress in apt-get packages, or did I choose the wrong repository? And so after copying over configs and startups I'm getting this error: Can't call method auth_name on an undefined value at /usr/local/share/perl/5.10.1/Apache2/AuthCookieDBI.pm line 284. Which is: my $auth_name = $r-auth_name; So the fact that $r is undefined tells me that whatever is running is NOT running under mod_perl, is this a valid assessment? Because right now I will have to get into a fight with my sys-admin who will say it's not working because I didn't configure something correctly, but my position is if he apt-gets everything and then copies over the config/startup from the old (working) install then everything *should* work so he's probably left out something. This does sounds like something in the config didn't get copied over. I believe your stuff runs as registry/perlrun scripts, so that would be the configuration that's missing. Adam
Re: No $r = no mod_perl?
Sorry, false alarm... I had subclassed Apache2::AuthCookieDBI 2.12 and
had to do things like this:
*Apache2::AuthCookieDBI::_dbi_connect = sub {
since Apache2::AuthCookieDBI wasn't very subclassable, and with the
upgrade to a very nice Apache2::AuthCookieDBI 2.14 my whatever I did up
there broke things.
I guess I owe my admin a beer.
Tosh
On 7/10/11 7:09 PM, Hendrik Schumacher wrote:
Maybe you are using the wrong sethandler value for your application, check
http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/user/config/config.html#C_GlobalRequest_
If you are using a global $r variable you should specify
SetHandler perl-script
and not
SetHandler modperl
Using the latter you get the $r variable as an argument to your handler-sub.
Hendrik
Am So, 10.07.2011, 12:08 schrieb Tosh Cooey:
So I'm following your advice and going the easy route of apt-get
everything.
My original server had this config:
Apache/2.2.11 (Ubuntu) mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.10.0 Server
And two years later we're at:
Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu) mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.10.1 Server
Is that really the state of two years of progress in apt-get packages,
or did I choose the wrong repository?
And so after copying over configs and startups I'm getting this error:
Can't call method auth_name on an undefined value at
/usr/local/share/perl/5.10.1/Apache2/AuthCookieDBI.pm line 284.
Which is: my $auth_name = $r-auth_name;
So the fact that $r is undefined tells me that whatever is running is
NOT running under mod_perl, is this a valid assessment?
Because right now I will have to get into a fight with my sys-admin who
will say it's not working because I didn't configure something
correctly, but my position is if he apt-gets everything and then copies
over the config/startup from the old (working) install then everything
*should* work so he's probably left out something.
Do you see now why I would prefer to work with a PaaS instead of admins,
I don't want to have to deal with this, I just want to write apps.
Thanks!
Tosh
--
McIntosh Cooey - Twelve Hundred Group LLC - http://www.1200group.com/
--
McIntosh Cooey - Twelve Hundred Group LLC - http://www.1200group.com/
