[users@httpd] ~ home virtualhost

[Gokan Atmaca]

Hello

Apache "~" symbol can show you how.

Example:
http://domain.net/ ~ / index.php

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

[David Favor]

Joey J wrote:
Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only 
used by 2.5% of active Apache sites.   Why is the adoption so low?? The 
Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for some time 
and looking at the improvements I see significant value in several.  I 
don't see any reason why anybody wouldn't want to use it but the 
community seems to think it's bad.


What am I missing??

Current market share:
http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all

 -Joey J


Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.

For example, when Ubuntu upgraded to Apache-2.4.x the normal
upgrade process bricked every single domain being served.

I was able to find the fix + had to hand edit 100s of files
for domain confs.

For most mere mortals, doing an upgrade + having 100s or 1000s
of domains go dark, creates much discomfort in pits of their stomachs.

   Many people, just rolled back OS version + Apache.

In the future, might be best to think about this before hand...
if mass adoption of new code is the end goal.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

[Eric Covener]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor  wrote:
> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.

What do you mean by the format?

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

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] Apache load capacity

[David Favor]

Koray Ersin wrote:

Hi all,

I have an Apache/2.2.15 server running on RHEL 6.

There is a single file (150K in size )hosted on this server.

The server has 2 x 2.6Ghz quad-core CPU and has 12GB memory.

I would like to know/calculate how many concurrent users can download 
this file.


Which configurable files we have on Apache the load on the server ?

Thanks,

Koray


Approach this differently, as your answer relates to how your entire
server is tuned...

   Filesystem type + mount options
   If MariaDB/MySQL is in use, is /tmp in tmpfs (memory) or on disk
   If PHP is in use, is APC (Apache-2.2.x) or Opcache (Apache-2.4.x) tuned

All accesses will fight for resources.

If your site really only serves one file + no other content, then you'll
be constrained by several things...

   Your Ethernet connection 100M or 1G or 10G (primary factor)
   Caching headers sent with your file (if file downloaded multiple times by 
same user)
   If file is cached well (Filesystem tuned + maybe Apache cache tuned)

A quick test of how fast a single file will serve is to do this.

   1) ssh into your machine (you must ssh in for this test for it to be 
accurate)

   2) create a 150K file
  net1# dd if=/dev/zero of=output.dat bs=150K count=1

   3) run ab against said file
  net1# ab -k -t 10 -n 1000 -c 5 http://davidfavor.com/output.dat | 
grep Requests
  Finished 200265 requests
  Requests per second:20026.41 [#/sec] (mean)

So on this particular server, 20,000+ people can download this file every 1 
second...

   depending on speed of Ethernet connection

Then you have to determine the connection speed you require, base on number
of simultaneous downloads/second you must support.

This is a very simple explanation + only correct in simple terms + you get the
ideas. You can test your max file serving speed using ab on your machine. Then
run the same test elsewhere which will then test your Ethernet speed - both of
your server (where domain lives) + where you run the test from, so if you run
this from your home, you'll be limited by both your home connection + server
connection.

If you really must have these numbers for a biz reason, best hire someone that
does this type of testing every day.

- David, Skype: davidfavor

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] New install of Apache not accepting client certs

[David Favor]

D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:

I just upgraded my Apache from 2.4.7 to 2.4.9 and now my clients' cert
give me a "server certificate does NOT include an ID which matches the
server name" error and it serves the system cert instead which fails
because it doesn't match the domain.  Here is an example (sanitized)
entry in my httpd.conf.  Any ideas?  I am reverting to 2.4.7 in the
meantime.


ServerName wwws.example.com
DocumentRoot /u/WEB/user
ServerAdmin webmas...@vex.net
SuexecUserGroup user user
 
Include /VEX/templates/www/httpd-ssl.conf

SSLCertificateFile /VEX/certs/wwws.example.com.cert
SSLCertificateKeyFile /etc/certs/wwws.example.com.key

--

/VEX/templates/www/httpd-ssl.conf contains this:

SSLEngine on
 


SSLOptions +StdEnvVars

 
SetEnvIf User-Agent ".*MSIE.*" \

 nokeepalive ssl-unclean-shutdown \
 downgrade-1.0 force-response-1.0




Running your site through this tool might help...

https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/index.html

And... Make sure your host still points to the exact same IP address.

Likely many of the SSL certificate checkers will help. Just google...

ssl certificate checker

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

[David Favor]

Eric Covener wrote:

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor  wrote:

Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.


What do you mean by the format?


http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrading.html covers this... snippet...

   In this example, all requests are allowed.

   2.2 configuration:

   Order allow,deny
   Allow from all

   2.4 configuration:

   Require all granted

This is what bricked everyone's Apache config.

Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf suffix,
which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks removed
(from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled.

Neither of these were a big deal + still make domains go dark.

When I updated several 1000s of my client domains went dark. Till I figured
out these niggling reasons... it was a very bad day...

- David

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

[Jeff Trawick]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM, David Favor  wrote:

> Eric Covener wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.
>>>
>>
>> What do you mean by the format?
>>
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrading.html covers this...
> snippet...
>
>In this example, all requests are allowed.
>
>2.2 configuration:
>
>Order allow,deny
>Allow from all
>
>2.4 configuration:
>
>Require all granted
>
> This is what bricked everyone's Apache config.
>

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_access_compat.html


>
> Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf
> suffix,
> which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks
> removed
> (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled.
>

Is that a Debian thing?  Apache httpd didn't make any such change.


>
> Neither of these were a big deal + still make domains go dark.
>
> When I updated several 1000s of my client domains went dark. Till I figured
> out these niggling reasons... it was a very bad day...
>
> - David
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
>
>


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

Re: [users@httpd] tuning question

[David Favor]

Miles Fidelman wrote:

Hi Folks,

Ever once in a while, a crawler comes along and starts indexing our site 
- and in the process pushes our server's load average through the roof.


Short of blocking the crawlers, can anybody suggest some quick tuning 
adjustments to make, to reduce load (setting the max. number of servers 
and/or requests, renicing processes)?


Yes - my next step is to go pour through manuals - but I expect others 
have done this enough to be able to point me at a few specific config 
file lines to change, and specific commands for identifying and renicing 
processes.


Thanks very much,

Miles Fidelman



http://BadBotBlocker.com is some code I use on client sites to do adaptive 
blocking.

   Warning: code is ugly + requires a good cleanup + packaging for different 
OSes.

Pretty simple.

1) Anyone who follows the /bad-spider/ link gets blocked for 1 hour
   via iptables (all ports + protocols)

2) After 1 hour the iptables block rule is removed

3) Add  links to /bad-spider/ in every file served,
   so only non-humans every "see this link"

4) add the link /bad-spider/ as blocked for everyone to robots.txt

This simple approach has cut down traffic by 80-90% for some of my clients.

Because the rules only last for 1 hour, no site is blocked forever.

Because the rules are adaptive (appear + disappear), there no maintenance.

After reboots, all rules are lost + process just starts again.

Very simple code.

- David, Skype: davidfavor

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] YOU BROKE MY CODE!

[David Favor]

Andy Canfield wrote:
  Last week, if you went to http://www.andycanfield.com, you would see 
my web site. Today, if you go there, you will see "Internal Server 
Error". Apache broke it.


Likely you've been hit with what everyone had to recover from...

   http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrading.html
   Run-Time Configuration Changes section

Also remember now only .conf files are accepted, so if your
conf files don't end in .conf you have to rename them all.

I'm unsure if this is an Apache-ism or Ubuntu-ism. I only had
time to fix this problem when all my 1000s of client domains
went dark upgrading from 2.2 to 2.4 - so no time for research.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

[David Favor]

Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM, David Favor > wrote:


Eric Covener wrote:

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor
mailto:da...@davidfavor.com>> wrote:

Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.


What do you mean by the format?


http://httpd.apache.org/docs/__trunk/upgrading.html
 covers this...
snippet...

   In this example, all requests are allowed.

   2.2 configuration:

   Order allow,deny
   Allow from all

   2.4 configuration:

   Require all granted

This is what bricked everyone's Apache config.


http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_access_compat.html
 



Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf
suffix,
which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old
symlinks removed
(from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled.


Is that a Debian thing?  Apache httpd didn't make any such change.


This might have been a Debian-ism or Ubuntu-ism.

I had no time to check, only time to fix.

Dark domains == red-in-face clients... with hoes... pitchforks... torches...

Shudder...

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] Where is the Apache Server Admin Program

[David Favor]

Giovanni Bianchini wrote:

Dear Group;

I just installed the httpd-2.2.25-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8y on my Windows 8 
machine.

Monitor says "Running All Apache Services" and indeed windows services show them being 
started and running. I have connected to it via 127.0.0.1 on port 80 and received the 
message "It works"


I have reviewed the documentation but cannot find the admin program to configure the 
software. I am assuming of course there is a gui like Microsofts IIS admin program or is 
everything managed and configured through the .conf file?


Giovanni


There are many attempts at this - ISPconfig + ZPanel + many more.

Problem is the Apache config system is very complex.

You're likely better off just hand editing all the many config files.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

[Yehuda Katz]

>
>  Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf
>> suffix,
>> which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks
>> removed
>> (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled.
>>
>
> Is that a Debian thing?  Apache httpd didn't make any such change.
>

This is a Debian change.
The Apache wiki should probably be updated too:
https://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout#Debian.2C_Ubuntu_.28Apache_httpd_2.x.29
:

>From /usr/share/doc/apache2/README.Debian.gz (in Ubuntu 14.04):

The Include directives ignore files with names that do not end with a
> .conf suffix. This behavior has changed from previous releases!


- Y

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

[Yehuda Katz]

Should add that they even provided a script for renaming:
/usr/share/doc/apache2/migrate-sites.pl



- Y


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Yehuda Katz  wrote:

>  Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf
>>> suffix,
>>> which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks
>>> removed
>>> (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled.
>>>
>>
>> Is that a Debian thing?  Apache httpd didn't make any such change.
>>
>
> This is a Debian change.
> The Apache wiki should probably be updated too:
> https://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout#Debian.2C_Ubuntu_.28Apache_httpd_2.x.29
> :
>
> From /usr/share/doc/apache2/README.Debian.gz (in Ubuntu 14.04):
>
> The Include directives ignore files with names that do not end with a
>> .conf suffix. This behavior has changed from previous releases!
>
>
> - Y
>

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

[Jim Jagielski]

There was one for 2.0->2.2, so having one for 2.2->2.4 makes
sense, and should be easy.

On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:41 AM, Yehuda Katz  wrote:

> Should add that they even provided a script for renaming:
> /usr/share/doc/apache2/migrate-sites.pl
> 
> 
> 
> - Y
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Yehuda Katz  wrote:
> Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf suffix,
> which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks removed
> (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled.
> 
> Is that a Debian thing?  Apache httpd didn't make any such change.
> 
> This is a Debian change.
> The Apache wiki should probably be updated too: 
> https://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout#Debian.2C_Ubuntu_.28Apache_httpd_2.x.29:
> 
> From /usr/share/doc/apache2/README.Debian.gz (in Ubuntu 14.04):
> 
> The Include directives ignore files with names that do not end with a
> .conf suffix. This behavior has changed from previous releases!
> 
> - Y
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

[users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

[Good Guy]

On 18/07/2014 15:35, Eric Covener wrote:

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21  AM, David Favor 

> wrote:
>> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.
>
> What do you mean by the format?
>

I think what he is talking about is that for each upgrades, apache 
becomes non-compliance with the previous version.  So if you plan to use 
the same conf file to speed up the implementation then you are likely to 
be stuck because some entries in the conf file won't work and throw out 
errors.


Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old 
one should still work.






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

[Edgar Pettijohn]

"Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old
one should still work"

I agree 100%


On 07/18/2014 12:31 PM, Good Guy wrote:
> On 18/07/2014 15:35, Eric Covener wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21  AM, David Favor 
> > wrote:
> >> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.
> >
> > What do you mean by the format?
> >
>
> I think what he is talking about is that for each upgrades, apache
> becomes non-compliance with the previous version.  So if you plan to
> use the same conf file to speed up the implementation then you are
> likely to be stuck because some entries in the conf file won't work
> and throw out errors.
>
> Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old
> one should still work.
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
>


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

[Daniel Gruno]

On 07/18/2014 07:31 PM, Good Guy wrote:
> On 18/07/2014 15:35, Eric Covener wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21  AM, David Favor 
>> wrote:
>>> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.
>>
>> What do you mean by the format?
>>
> 
> I think what he is talking about is that for each upgrades, apache
> becomes non-compliance with the previous version.  So if you plan to use
> the same conf file to speed up the implementation then you are likely to
> be stuck because some entries in the conf file won't work and throw out
> errors.
> 
> Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old
> one should still work.
> 
> 

What on earth are you all on about?

Order x,y still works
Allow from ... still works
Deny from ... still works

There is no earth shattering change in the configuration, merely a new
and better way of setting access and an old way - both are supported.

The old way has now moved to mod_access_compat because it's not the
preferred way of handling access, but it is nonetheless still supported.

The .conf issue is purely Debian's making (and is described in their
changes doc, if people would bother reading it), take it up with the
Debian folks.


With regards,
Daniel.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

[Jeff Trawick]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Edgar Pettijohn 
wrote:

> "Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old
> one should still work"
>
> I agree 100%
>

By and large, the developers who bring you Apache httpd for free are
willing to maintain compatibility with a certain syntax and module API for
"only" 8-10 years at a time.

Some new features or architectural improvements require some degree of a
fresh slate, and are reserved for the next major version where such changes
have to be taken.


>
>
> On 07/18/2014 12:31 PM, Good Guy wrote:
> > On 18/07/2014 15:35, Eric Covener wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21  AM, David Favor 
> > > wrote:
> > >> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.
> > >
> > > What do you mean by the format?
> > >
> >
> > I think what he is talking about is that for each upgrades, apache
> > becomes non-compliance with the previous version.  So if you plan to
> > use the same conf file to speed up the implementation then you are
> > likely to be stuck because some entries in the conf file won't work
> > and throw out errors.
> >
> > Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old
> > one should still work.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
>
>


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

[users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

[LuKreme]

On 18 Jul 2014, at 11:31 , Good Guy  wrote:
> Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old one 
> should still work.

I'm pretty happy not being stuck with apache 0.7¹ syntax, myself.

¹ I think that was the initial pre-release "a patchy server" version back in 
1995.


-- 
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org

Re: [users@httpd] You don't have permission to access / on this server.

[David Favor]

Jan Christoph Schatteburg wrote:

Hi,

i'm quite new to Apache and Servers in general and on my Wamp Server on 
a Windows 7 System using Apache 2.4.4 i get the following Error when 
trying to access localhost (from the Server machine of course ;)):


--
Forbidden

You don't have permission to access / on this server.
--

My httpd.conf has the following entries:

--

AllowOverride none
Order Deny,Allow
Allow from all



Options Indexes FollowSymLinks
AllowOverride None
Order Allow,Deny
Allow from all

--

I tried several different wordings like "Require all granted" instead of 
"Order Allow,Deny Allow from all" but nothing worked :(


I would be happy if somebody could help me.

Thanks,
Jan


Try changing...

Order Deny,Allow
Allow from all

to...

Require all granted

It appears you're trying to use Apache-2.2.x syntax with an Apache-2.4.x 
install.

Details here...

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrading.html
Run-Time Configuration Changes

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org