Re: suphp, php-cgi und apache
Hallo Michelle, Anm: Ich habe Performance-Probleme mit apache2, sprich, er ist ewig und drei Tage langsam. welche Version von Apache 2 hast Du denn genutzt? Ich habe auf fedora core und auf redhat (sind ja beide ziemlich ähnlich) Apache 2.2.3 und PHP 5.2.0 auf gesetzt und hatte keine Probleme mit der Performance. Bleibt die Frage, welches MPM Du denn genommen hast beim complieren. Gruß Mario -- Apache HTTP Server Mailing List users-de unsubscribe-Anfragen an [EMAIL PROTECTED] sonstige Anfragen an [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] custom log files and directories?
On Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:13 AM [GMT+1=CET], William Kronert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I want to direct the access logs from one directory to a custom log file. Is this possible? Example would be: www.example.com/dirA www.example.com/dirB I wish to have all the files that are accessed for www.example.com/dirB put into a special access log file named: dirB-access_log and all the other access logs for all the other directories (minus dirB) put into the standard access_log (common) file. Is there away to do this? I think it is possible using the custom log directive but I haven’t been able to get it to work. You could try to place CustomLog directives within Directory con- tainers, but I'm not sure if that will do (report here, if you've checked it out). Another method is proposed (similarly) in the Apache docs (see /manual/mod/mod_log_config.html#customlog). Tag your requests and write to different log files like so: SetEnvIf Request_URI ^/dirA.* dirA_req SetEnvIf Request_URI ^/dirB.* dirB_req SetEnvIf Request_URI ^/(?!dir[AB]).* other_req CustomLog dirA-access.log common env=dirA_req CustomLog dirB-access.log common env=dirB_req CustomLog access.log env=other_req HTH Olaf Lautenschlaeger ANOVA Multimedia Studios GmbH - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (8)Exec format error: exec of 'test.php' failed when ScriptAlias
On 2/22/07, thomas Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 51a8:1409:18d7:afbf:20df:9300:a00:0] (8)Exec format error: exec of '/home/project/modules/videos/web/test.php' failed Perhaps you need a shebang (!#/usr/bin...) line at the top of the PHP script so the interpreter can be found? -- Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] setting up virtual hosting
Sam Carleton wrote: On 2/22/07, Boyle Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am back at it and it simply is NOT working. No matter what I do, I cannot get to the default web site. It is not clear what you mean by default web site. Once you start using VHs, the default web site becomes the *first* VH in the config. So if you hit the server using IP address only (no hostname) you should get the *first* VH. Is this what happens? If not, what site *do* you get? Owen, I get what I consider the secondary site. Which is exactly why I asked the following question: In years past (like five years ago) I had been successful in doing thing, but that was back when there was only one httpd.conf file. This SuSE setup has a ton of files. Is there some way I can make apache tell me what it sees as the configuration? Is there any way for me to get apache to display the config, the way it sees it? I am guessing I have something backwards so that what I want as the default site is getting consumed after the site I want as the secondary. Sam - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dont be discouraged, the VH section of Apache is predictable and does work. If you have SeLinux turned on, make sure your paths come under the control of the apache user. Make sure your server has a static IP. how is your hosts file set up, and on what IP address is your apache server bound. say you have a server with ip address 192.168.0.4, which people can access from the internet with ip address 66.67.68.69 using port forwarding and that you have two FQDNs served by the server, say sub1.server.com and sub2.server.com in httpd.conf you bind your server to 192.168.0.4 #note you dont HAVE to bind to one IP, but it locks things down Listen 192.168.0.4:80 #we wont deal with SSL for now #Listen 192.168.0.4:443 your hosts file on the server machine must actually point to this IP, NOT to 127.0.0.1 because your apache server is no longer listening on 127.0.0.1 so you should have the lines in /etc/hosts as follows 192.168.0.4 sub1.server.com 192.168.0.4 sub2.server.com in the main httpd.conf you must have the line # Virtual hosts Include conf/httpd-vhosts.conf # Turn off SSL/TLS for now #Include conf/httpd-ssl.conf and in your httpd-vhosts.conf file you must have NameVirtualHost 192.168.0.4:80 now just define the 4 sections note, some peopl use a * instead of IP, this works because it says dont care what the IP is, just look for the host header and if it matches the value of servername then use the VH that matches. However we have bound apache to a single static IP. 192.168.0.4 so the vhost sections can all use that IP since apache wont see requests coming in for 127.0.0.1 etc... VirtualHost 192.168.0.4:80 ServerName 192.168.0.4 DocumentRoot /path/to/vhosts/192.168.0.4/public /VirtualHost VirtualHost 192.168.0.4:80 ServerName 66.67.68.69 DocumentRoot /path/to/vhosts/66.67.68.69/public /VirtualHost VirtualHost 192.168.0.4:80 ServerName sub1.server.com DocumentRoot /path/to/vhosts/sub1.server.com/public /VirtualHost VirtualHost 192.168.0.4:80 ServerName sub2.server.com DocumentRoot /path/to/vhosts/sub2.server.com/public /VirtualHost Now there is one more condition, what if someone forms a request to your server either using 192.168.0.4 if they are on your LAN, or using 66.67.68.69 if they are out on the internet and does NOT send the hosts header along with the request. telnet 192.168.0.4 80[enter] GET / HTTP/1.1[enter][enter] Then apache we see the request but wont have a value of Host to match against your servername, so in this case it will serve the FIRST Vhost section. So the question is what do you place first? Perhaps you dont want someone to get to any of your sites unless they actually ask for them well you can have one more vhost section tht acts as a catch all. I use this: VirtualHost 192.168.0.4:80 ServerName oops #DocumentRoot /dev/null DocumentRoot /path/to/vhosts/oops/public /VirtualHost placed first this will act as a catch all for any clients who dont go to your other vhosts. it has one index file, htmlbodyplease use a browser that understands HTTP/1.0/body/html lets deal with SSL once the other vhosts are working. -- Matthew Farey - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] setting up virtual hosting
Sam Carleton wrote: On 2/22/07, Boyle Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am back at it and it simply is NOT working. No matter what I do, I cannot get to the default web site. It is not clear what you mean by default web site. Once you start using VHs, the default web site becomes the *first* VH in the config. So if you hit the server using IP address only (no hostname) you should get the *first* VH. Is this what happens? If not, what site *do* you get? Owen, I get what I consider the secondary site. Which is exactly why I asked the following question: In years past (like five years ago) I had been successful in doing thing, but that was back when there was only one httpd.conf file. This SuSE setup has a ton of files. Is there some way I can make apache tell me what it sees as the configuration? Is there any way for me to get apache to display the config, the way it sees it? I am guessing I have something backwards so that what I want as the default site is getting consumed after the site I want as the secondary. Sam I should add that the setup before assumed you used a router with port forwarding to get requests to your server from the internet, not a modem, and that you have a static public IP of 66.67.68.69, if you dont have a static IP or if your server is bound to the public IP, then just set apache to listen on that IP too using an extra Listen 66.67.68.69:80 statement, and change the VirtualHost 192.168.0.4:80 to VirtualHost *:80 matt - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] setting up virtual hosting
matt farey wrote: Sam Carleton wrote: On 2/22/07, Boyle Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am back at it and it simply is NOT working. No matter what I do, I cannot get to the default web site. It is not clear what you mean by default web site. Once you start using VHs, the default web site becomes the *first* VH in the config. So if you hit the server using IP address only (no hostname) you should get the *first* VH. Is this what happens? If not, what site *do* you get? Owen, I get what I consider the secondary site. Which is exactly why I asked the following question: In years past (like five years ago) I had been successful in doing thing, but that was back when there was only one httpd.conf file. This SuSE setup has a ton of files. Is there some way I can make apache tell me what it sees as the configuration? Is there any way for me to get apache to display the config, the way it sees it? I am guessing I have something backwards so that what I want as the default site is getting consumed after the site I want as the secondary. Sam I should add that the setup before assumed you used a router with port forwarding to get requests to your server from the internet, not a modem, and that you have a static public IP of 66.67.68.69, if you dont have a static IP or if your server is bound to the public IP, then just set apache to listen on that IP too using an extra Listen 66.67.68.69:80 statement, and change the VirtualHost 192.168.0.4:80 to VirtualHost *:80 matt - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello, I think you may go to http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/vhosts/ for reference... Edward.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Proxypass bad routing
Hi All Using apache mod_proxy 2.2.0 on Solaris 8. Imagine a web page where the overall content is delivered by a webserver A, and an IFrame in this page is delivered by a server B. To route the request on the appropriate server, I use the following proxypass commands in apache 2.2.0, used as a proxy ; ProxyPass /public/ http://serverA:80/public/ ProxyPassReverse /public/ http://serverA:80/public/ ProxyPass /be/ http://serverB:80/be/ ProxyPassReverse /be/ http://serverB:80/be/ When the overall page from A is loaded, all goes well. The page contains items delivered by both servers. However, if I click on the browser reload button (both IE and firefox), the Iframe content (url is target is on server B) shows a 404 error which is logged on server A. That is normally impossible regarding the proxypass configuration. This is a part of the server A log; [21/Feb/2007:10:21:50 +0100] GET /public/images/nav/page_background.jpg HTTP/1.1 304 - [21/Feb/2007:10:21:50 +0100] GET /be/fr/images/sales_tools_img_tcm179-1117.jpg HTTP/1.1 404 341 As you can see, there is a GET on the folder /be/, that should not be possible regarding the proxypass configuration. If I force a server content refresh, by hiting Ctrl+Shift+reload button (IE) or Ctrl+reload button (Firefox), all works well. As it is seen on the log, this is not a browser cache issue, since the request goes to bad server. I analyzed the HTTP requests in both cases, by doing a simple refresh and a server content refresh, they are the same. I will try to update this proxy from apache 2.2.0 to 2.2.4. Is there something else I could do ? Thanks. Philippe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Does AllowOverride All damage Apache performance?
Hi. One colleague claims that if we set AllowOverride All within our httpd.conf, the performance of Apache (we use 2.0.59) is damaged. Is this true? Any suggestion is welcome. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (8)Exec format error: exec of 'test.php' failed when ScriptAlias
Easier (within httpd.conf): Directory /home/project/modules/ AddHandler application/x-httpd-php .php /Directory --- Thank you very much anyway! On 2/22/07, Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/22/07, thomas Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 51a8:1409:18d7:afbf:20df:9300:a00:0] (8)Exec format error: exec of '/home/project/modules/videos/web/test.php' failed Perhaps you need a shebang (!#/usr/bin...) line at the top of the PHP script so the interpreter can be found? -- Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does AllowOverride All damage Apache performance?
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:50:30 +0100 thomas Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. One colleague claims that if we set AllowOverride All within our httpd.conf, the performance of Apache (we use 2.0.59) is damaged. Yes, though it's not the whole truth. Any Allowoverride value other than None is quite a big performance hit, but the difference between [some] and All is negligible. -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/ - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does AllowOverride All damage Apache performance?
On 2/22/07, thomas Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. One colleague claims that if we set AllowOverride All within our httpd.conf, the performance of Apache (we use 2.0.59) is damaged. Is this true? Any suggestion is welcome. As discussed here: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/misc/perf-tuning.html#runtime if AllowOverride is set to anything other than none, then there will be a performance penalty as apache looks for .htaccess files. This would only be noticeable on a site that was stretching its performance to the limits. For example, apache.org runs with AllowOverride enabled and easily transfers hundreds of gigabytes and hundreds of millions of requests per day. And if you are running any kind of dynamic content like php, the processing time for those scripts will overwhelm any time spent looking for .htaccess files. In other words, the performance hit from enabling .htaccess is irrelevant to most sites. But if you are running a site that needs the maximum throughput for requests for small static files, you might consider disabling it and testing the result. Joshua. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does AllowOverride All damage Apache performance?
On many systems the htaccess files will tend to stay in cache - if not the systems's memory cache then the disk subsystem's cache. The busier the server gets, the more likely this is to be true, because it uses the one htaccess file for references to all other files in the directory. So there is very little overhead in reading them. However, I come from the era when you avoided machine intructions that took more than two CPU cycles... so I avoid htaccess files :-) On 22/02/07, Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/22/07, thomas Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. One colleague claims that if we set AllowOverride All within our httpd.conf, the performance of Apache (we use 2.0.59) is damaged. Is this true? Any suggestion is welcome. As discussed here: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/misc/perf-tuning.html#runtime if AllowOverride is set to anything other than none, then there will be a performance penalty as apache looks for .htaccess files. This would only be noticeable on a site that was stretching its performance to the limits. For example, apache.org runs with AllowOverride enabled and easily transfers hundreds of gigabytes and hundreds of millions of requests per day. And if you are running any kind of dynamic content like php, the processing time for those scripts will overwhelm any time spent looking for .htaccess files. In other words, the performance hit from enabling .htaccess is irrelevant to most sites. But if you are running a site that needs the maximum throughput for requests for small static files, you might consider disabling it and testing the result. Joshua. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Steve Swift http://www.swiftys.org.uk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] avoiding a redirect loop with rewrites
Hi, I'm working for a small company that uses a custom CMS. When customers create pages in the CMS a file gets created based on the page's id number - for example: www.mysite.com/pages/pid5.html I've pushed some code into the CMS that lets the site admin create a nice URL for each page so you get something nicer like: www.mysite.com/products.html The pid5.html file still exists but now they should see the new URL everywhere on the site. The rule I used for this was: RewriteRule ^products.html$ /pages/pid5.html [L,QSA,NC] One of the folks in charge here wanted to make sure that for existing sites anyone who still had the old URL bookmarked or search engines that have the old URL gets a permanent redirect to the new one to avoid having two URLs that go to the same place. I thought I'd do this with a RedirectPermanent, but when I do that I get a redirect loop. I also tried creating rewrite rules for the pid5.html page - no luck. Basically, is there any way to have a rewrite rule map a new URL name to an existing page, and also a permanent redirect for anyone using the old URL name. I would have to think this has come up before but wasn't able to find anything. Thanks for your help, Josh - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003
I just installed Apache 1.3.5 on Windows 2003, and when I tested it it worked, but when I tried to install PHP I can't start the server anymore. The apache server on the local machine started and then stopped... I used this website to configure PHP. http://www.thesitewizard.com/archive/php4install.shtml http://www.thesitewizard.com/archive/php4install.shtml I have also changed the document root to another location, which did work before PHP. So assuming I have followed the instruction on this site to the T, what could be the problem Thanks
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003
On 2/22/07, Techguy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just installed Apache 1.3.5 on Windows 2003 Don't do that. Apache 1.3 on Windows is dead. Use 2.2. Jsohua. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003
It works, PHP doesn't - and since I have 1.3 on my Linux box I want to keep them the same, and I don't plan on upgrading Linux. If it isn't broke, don't mess with it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Slive Sent: February 22, 2007 1:51 PM To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003 On 2/22/07, Techguy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just installed Apache 1.3.5 on Windows 2003 Don't do that. Apache 1.3 on Windows is dead. Use 2.2. Jsohua. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003
Techguy wrote: It works, PHP doesn't - and since I have 1.3 on my Linux box I want to keep them the same, and I don't plan on upgrading Linux. If it isn't broke, don't mess with it. if everyone did that, we'd still be banging flints together. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Slive Sent: February 22, 2007 1:51 PM To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003 On 2/22/07, Techguy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just installed Apache 1.3.5 on Windows 2003 Don't do that. Apache 1.3 on Windows is dead. Use 2.2. Jsohua. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003
Pid wrote: Techguy wrote: It works, PHP doesn't - and since I have 1.3 on my Linux box I want to keep them the same, and I don't plan on upgrading Linux. If it isn't broke, don't mess with it. If you are really running apache 1.3.5 on your linux box, and corresponding software from that epoch, it has serious issues. I doubt it's your box anymore :) - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003
At 11:54 AM 2/22/2007, Techguy wrote: It works, PHP doesn't - and since I have 1.3 on my Linux box I want to keep them the same, and I don't plan on upgrading Linux. If it isn't broke, don't mess with it. With security holes, exploits, etc, do you REALLY want to run a OLD version of Apache? Do you keep your operating system up to date with patches? - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] avoiding a redirect loop with rewrites
Josh Trutwin wrote:
Hi,
I'm working for a small company that uses a custom CMS. When
customers create pages in the CMS a file gets created based on the
page's id number - for example:
www.mysite.com/pages/pid5.html
I've pushed some code into the CMS that lets the site admin create a
nice URL for each page so you get something nicer like:
www.mysite.com/products.html
The pid5.html file still exists but now they should see the new URL
everywhere on the site. The rule I used for this was:
RewriteRule ^products.html$ /pages/pid5.html [L,QSA,NC]
One of the folks in charge here wanted to make sure that for
existing sites anyone who still had the old URL bookmarked or search
engines that have the old URL gets a permanent redirect to the new
one to avoid having two URLs that go to the same place. I thought
I'd do this with a RedirectPermanent, but when I do that I get a
redirect loop. I also tried creating rewrite rules for the pid5.html
page - no luck.
Basically, is there any way to have a rewrite rule map a new URL name
to an existing page, and also a permanent redirect for anyone using
the old URL name. I would have to think this has come up before but
wasn't able to find anything.
Thanks for your help,
Josh
-
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is possible of course, but IMHO it isnt what rewrites are for, it
is muddle headed to refuse to serve a valid url until the browser has
been redirected to an invalid resource which serves the url in the
background. It wont solve the issue of outdated bookmarks, it just
further confuses the older client because they see things refreshing to
a new URL, when they were used to the old one (these are the clients
that apparently notice these things)
This is the reason it isn't everywhere in the docs ;) By the way it
causes another HTTP request, and repeats of all the associated linked files:
RewriteEngine On
ReWriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} pid5.html$
ReWriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} !stop=yes
ReWriteRule . /products.html [R=301]
ReWriteRule ^products.html$ /pages/pid5.html?stop=yes [L,QSA]
I'll be embarrassed if it works, the easier way would be to let your CMS
handle this internally using PHP perhaps, then the rewrite rules can be
simple,a dnt eh CMS ensures the right url in all the links.
Where does the bookmark come from, chase down all the places where they
can see that link, and force it to be the new url, all seems a bit
backward. Next time tell your boss, look you employed me to do this
job, so trust me to do it sounds like a micro manager!
--
Matthew Farey
-
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003
Now that everyone has got their opinions out of the way of how behind I am, is their a way to get this to work? To the person who said I doubt it's your box anymore, Why?? It is and it works, and to WOW everyone even more, it's running beautifully on a 366 with 256 megs of ram. It never crashes, it never hiccups, and it's reasonably fast running on an old version of Slackware (8.1) - so why would I want to change it? I also have an analog TV and a 15 year old toaster that work fantastic as well, and I'm not planning to upgrade those either. New does not necessarily mean better, and in many cases are much worse. Thanks -Original Message- From: Pid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: February 22, 2007 3:26 PM To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003 Techguy wrote: It works, PHP doesn't - and since I have 1.3 on my Linux box I want to keep them the same, and I don't plan on upgrading Linux. If it isn't broke, don't mess with it. if everyone did that, we'd still be banging flints together. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Slive Sent: February 22, 2007 1:51 PM To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003 On 2/22/07, Techguy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just installed Apache 1.3.5 on Windows 2003 Don't do that. Apache 1.3 on Windows is dead. Use 2.2. Jsohua. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003
Why update? 1) Security patches. You missed the subtle reference that older versions of Apache are vulnerable and therefore could compromise your system. 2) Apache 1.3x is abandoned on Win32 platforms, 2.2.x is current. See http://www.wmwweb.com/apache/httpd/binaries/win32/ for part of the explanation. Back to your message -- you are not alone: we all manage systems that are not bleeding edge. However, that does not mean we aren't aware of the responsibility to keep them up to date for bug, stability, and security reasons. We all must calculate the appropriate manner to manage updates. When it comes to requesting Apache support, you're very unlikely to see someone to volunteer to help with an older version for the reasons stated: it's not good advice! I hope this helps, sometimes hearing the fundamental reason helps on the second iteration of a discussion. Cheers, --Mark Mark Lavi, Enterprise Web Management Team @ SGI mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] || phone:+1-650-933-7707 -Original Message- From: Techguy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:41 PM To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003 Now that everyone has got their opinions out of the way of how behind I am, is their a way to get this to work? To the person who said I doubt it's your box anymore, Why?? It is and it works, and to WOW everyone even more, it's running beautifully on a 366 with 256 megs of ram. It never crashes, it never hiccups, and it's reasonably fast running on an old version of Slackware (8.1) - so why would I want to change it? I also have an analog TV and a 15 year old toaster that work fantastic as well, and I'm not planning to upgrade those either. New does not necessarily mean better, and in many cases are much worse. Thanks -Original Message- From: Pid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: February 22, 2007 3:26 PM To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003 Techguy wrote: It works, PHP doesn't - and since I have 1.3 on my Linux box I want to keep them the same, and I don't plan on upgrading Linux. If it isn't broke, don't mess with it. if everyone did that, we'd still be banging flints together. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Slive Sent: February 22, 2007 1:51 PM To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003 On 2/22/07, Techguy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just installed Apache 1.3.5 on Windows 2003 Don't do that. Apache 1.3 on Windows is dead. Use 2.2. Jsohua. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003
Techguy wrote: Now that everyone has got their opinions out of the way of how behind I am, is their a way to get this to work? To the person who said I doubt it's your box anymore, Why?? It is and it works, and to WOW everyone even more, it's running beautifully on a 366 with 256 megs of ram. Apache 1.3.5 is about 8 years old, and was never released. If you run software that flaky, and connected to the internet, you are pwned and should reformat your harddrive immediately and spare us the spam and viruses you are spewing out on behalf of others. New does not necessarily mean better, and in many cases are much worse. In the case of Apache 1.3 - I'm individually responsible for a vast number of Windows-specific bug fixes to the very hackish attempt to run Apache using threads, instead of separate processes. It works (kinda) and I used it (past tense) myself when I was locally developing stuff on win to roll out on real boxes in production (not windows). Apache 1.3 was built for fork(). In Apache 2 we scrapped that crap. We started over designing the internals of apache to deal with threads, processes or whatever the Operating System provided us that would work effectively. A library called APR provides the most generic abstraction of these concepts that we can. So on Windows, you won't find many champions when the only source code champion (me) has effectively said aidos to 1.3 when it's running on Win. The bugs that remain in 1.3 on Windows will never be fixed. The solution to a new server on Windows is an Apache 2.something version. That is as official a word as you'll ever read. Bill - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003
Techguy wrote: I used this website to configure PHP. http://www.thesitewizard.com/archive/php4install.shtml He last updated that 7 March 2003. Maybe you should ask him? Or perhaps read modern instructions instead. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003
For techguy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned -- you'll get the idea. --Mark Mark Lavi, Enterprise Web Management Team @ SGI mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] || phone:+1-650-933-7707 -Original Message- From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:56 PM To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003 Techguy wrote: Now that everyone has got their opinions out of the way of how behind I am, is their a way to get this to work? To the person who said I doubt it's your box anymore, Why?? It is and it works, and to WOW everyone even more, it's running beautifully on a 366 with 256 megs of ram. Apache 1.3.5 is about 8 years old, and was never released. If you run software that flaky, and connected to the internet, you are pwned and should reformat your harddrive immediately and spare us the spam and viruses you are spewing out on behalf of others. New does not necessarily mean better, and in many cases are much worse. In the case of Apache 1.3 - I'm individually responsible for a vast number of Windows-specific bug fixes to the very hackish attempt to run Apache using threads, instead of separate processes. It works (kinda) and I used it (past tense) myself when I was locally developing stuff on win to roll out on real boxes in production (not windows). Apache 1.3 was built for fork(). In Apache 2 we scrapped that crap. We started over designing the internals of apache to deal with threads, processes or whatever the Operating System provided us that would work effectively. A library called APR provides the most generic abstraction of these concepts that we can. So on Windows, you won't find many champions when the only source code champion (me) has effectively said aidos to 1.3 when it's running on Win. The bugs that remain in 1.3 on Windows will never be fixed. The solution to a new server on Windows is an Apache 2.something version. That is as official a word as you'll ever read. Bill - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mod_proxy_ftp
Hi, I have following problems with mod_proxy_ftp: 1) I'm reverse-proxying a ftp server with a national charset and all non-english links are broken(Bad Request) 2) Links that consist of two(or more) words separated by spaces look also incorrect, for example: if there is a folder some files, it will look like 'some a href=filesfiles/a' instead of 'a href=some filessome files/a' a part of config: ProxyRequests Off ProxyPass /ftp/ ftp://192.168.0.1/ Any help will be highly appreciated - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] avoiding a redirect loop with rewrites
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:36:03 +
matt farey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RewriteEngine On
ReWriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} pid5.html$
ReWriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} !stop=yes
ReWriteRule . /products.html [R=301]
ReWriteRule ^products.html$ /pages/pid5.html?stop=yes [L,QSA]
Thanks Matt - I'll give that a try to see if it fits the works. I
assume this would still work too if I wanted to be as specific as
possible:
ReWriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} pages/pid5.html$
I'll be embarrassed if it works, the easier way would be to let
your CMS handle this internally using PHP perhaps, then the rewrite
rules can be simple,a dnt eh CMS ensures the right url in all the
links.
The CMS is written in PhP and I am trying to catch all instances of
the old URL where I can and replacing with the new URL (the rules are
also stored in a db for quick lookup). So *internally* all the
pidXX.html references should be taken care of.
Where does the bookmark come from, chase down all the places where
they can see that link, and force it to be the new url, all seems a
bit backward. Next time tell your boss, look you employed me to do
this job, so trust me to do it sounds like a micro manager!
Well - technically not a manager - a reseller I think. Here's
verbatim what they told me (old pages = pages/pidXX.html):
If we are changing url paths, we will need to setup 301's in
their .htaccess files from the old pages to the 'new' pages. Thats
the only way to insure the rankings wont drop. ... You want to
avoid systems that create two separate instances of a page that have
identical content but are addressable from different URLs. Duplicate
content risks the appearance of spamming the search index.
The big concern I think is Search Engines finding two URLs to the
same page and somehow punishing the site because of it. They might
have pages/pid5.html as the products page and then crawl the site to
find the link products.html is the same page.
I don't know enough about SEO to say much about this.
Thanks,
Josh
-
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003
Thanks for the input, but I'll be moving along. I have reasons for keeping things status quo, and not going to upgrade at this time. -Original Message- From: Mark Lavi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: February 22, 2007 6:52 PM To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003 Why update? 1) Security patches. You missed the subtle reference that older versions of Apache are vulnerable and therefore could compromise your system. 2) Apache 1.3x is abandoned on Win32 platforms, 2.2.x is current. See http://www.wmwweb.com/apache/httpd/binaries/win32/ for part of the explanation. Back to your message -- you are not alone: we all manage systems that are not bleeding edge. However, that does not mean we aren't aware of the responsibility to keep them up to date for bug, stability, and security reasons. We all must calculate the appropriate manner to manage updates. When it comes to requesting Apache support, you're very unlikely to see someone to volunteer to help with an older version for the reasons stated: it's not good advice! I hope this helps, sometimes hearing the fundamental reason helps on the second iteration of a discussion. Cheers, --Mark Mark Lavi, Enterprise Web Management Team @ SGI mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] || phone:+1-650-933-7707 -Original Message- From: Techguy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:41 PM To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003 Now that everyone has got their opinions out of the way of how behind I am, is their a way to get this to work? To the person who said I doubt it's your box anymore, Why?? It is and it works, and to WOW everyone even more, it's running beautifully on a 366 with 256 megs of ram. It never crashes, it never hiccups, and it's reasonably fast running on an old version of Slackware (8.1) - so why would I want to change it? I also have an analog TV and a 15 year old toaster that work fantastic as well, and I'm not planning to upgrade those either. New does not necessarily mean better, and in many cases are much worse. Thanks -Original Message- From: Pid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: February 22, 2007 3:26 PM To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003 Techguy wrote: It works, PHP doesn't - and since I have 1.3 on my Linux box I want to keep them the same, and I don't plan on upgrading Linux. If it isn't broke, don't mess with it. if everyone did that, we'd still be banging flints together. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Slive Sent: February 22, 2007 1:51 PM To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Installing Apache 1.3 on Windows 2003 On 2/22/07, Techguy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just installed Apache 1.3.5 on Windows 2003 Don't do that. Apache 1.3 on Windows is dead. Use 2.2. Jsohua. - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] avoiding a redirect loop with rewrites
Josh Trutwin wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:36:03 +
matt farey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RewriteEngine On
ReWriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} pid5.html$
ReWriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} !stop=yes
ReWriteRule . /products.html [R=301]
ReWriteRule ^products.html$ /pages/pid5.html?stop=yes [L,QSA]
Thanks Matt - I'll give that a try to see if it fits the works. I
assume this would still work too if I wanted to be as specific as
possible:
ReWriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} pages/pid5.html$
I'll be embarrassed if it works, the easier way would be to let
your CMS handle this internally using PHP perhaps, then the rewrite
rules can be simple,a dnt eh CMS ensures the right url in all the
links.
The CMS is written in PhP and I am trying to catch all instances of
the old URL where I can and replacing with the new URL (the rules are
also stored in a db for quick lookup). So *internally* all the
pidXX.html references should be taken care of.
Where does the bookmark come from, chase down all the places where
they can see that link, and force it to be the new url, all seems a
bit backward. Next time tell your boss, look you employed me to do
this job, so trust me to do it sounds like a micro manager!
Well - technically not a manager - a reseller I think. Here's
verbatim what they told me (old pages = pages/pidXX.html):
If we are changing url paths, we will need to setup 301's in
their .htaccess files from the old pages to the 'new' pages. Thats
the only way to insure the rankings wont drop. ... You want to
avoid systems that create two separate instances of a page that have
identical content but are addressable from different URLs. Duplicate
content risks the appearance of spamming the search index.
The big concern I think is Search Engines finding two URLs to the
same page and somehow punishing the site because of it. They might
have pages/pid5.html as the products page and then crawl the site to
find the link products.html is the same page.
I don't know enough about SEO to say much about this.
yes you can make it as specific as you like
well the only way SE would find 2 urls is if the 2 urls are on your site
and being indexed by the bots, OR if your customers have links to the
old page on their sites.
If the latter is a problem fair enough, but if you have changed all the
internal links and this is the only place that links exist pointing to
the content then your version of the rewrite is all thats needed, no 301
etc... since nowhere relevant will the old link exist. SEO is a funny
game, arm waving and hunches, people will pay a lot for black box
services run by marketing gurus, eyes roll in the direction of M$
Here's how most of my rewrites are
RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteRule ^$index.php/ [L]
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteRule (.*) index.php/$1 [QSA,L]
then the application logic takes care of the URLs so no other rewrites
are ever needed, query strings become obselete as the URL maps to
variables; sometimes I might add regular expressions and conditions into
the above so that apache has first bite at the URL, and then php also
checks it over, no harm in that methinks.
good luck
--
Matthew Farey
-
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
