-Original Message-
From: Brian Pane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 11:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: remaining CPU bottlenecks in 2.0
dean gaudet wrote:
[...]
>>* memset() is called mostly from apr_pcalloc(), which in turn is
>> used in too m
dean gaudet wrote:
[...]
>>* memset() is called mostly from apr_pcalloc(), which in turn is
>> used in too many places to yield any easy optimization opportunities.
>>
>
>sometimes folks are lazy and ask for zeroed memory out of habit, when they
>could easily deal with garbage at less cost.
>
S
I want to start rewriting Apache::Scoreboard perl glue for scoreboard, as
there are quite a few modules that rely on it. Can you please tell whether
it's a good timing to start working on it now, or should I wait some more?
I remember that there were quite a few changes quite recently in this
file
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 09:10:01PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
> >>I don't understand what you're trying to solve here, and how this
> >>solves it.
> >
> > It's an attempt to fix the mod_include
> > segfault. It "solves" it by setti
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 09:15:56PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
> >>On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:05:27PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> >>>Some performance results with mod_gz are available at
> >>>http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
> >>>(no core dumps.. pages look ok on a real browser while r
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 01:46:55PM -0600, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
> I suppose the only thing we can do is contribute. Kevin has, mod_gzip
> was released under an ASF license which was approved by the ASF Board.
> If there is a hidden agenda there then you're better than I at spotting
> it.
>
>
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Brian Pane wrote:
> * Collectively, stat and open comprise 5% of the total CPU time.
> It would be faster to do open+fstat rather than stat+open (as
> long as the server is delivering mostly 200s rather than 304s),
> but that might be too radical a change. Anybody have
Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:07:26PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:05:27PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
>>
>>>Some performance results with mod_gz are available at
>>>http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
>>>(no core dumps.. pages look ok on a real browser wh
Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>
>>I don't understand what you're trying to solve here, and how this
>>solves it.
>>
>
> It's an attempt to fix the mod_include
> segfault. It "solves" it by setting r->uri to something valid rather than
> setting it to "INTERNA
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 11:05:50AM -0700, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > > Ryan himself said he prefers 3 right off the bat when Jerry
> > > > said 'Let's dump Ian's mod_gz into the core!' which is what
> > > > started this whole entire thread.
> > >
> > > Ask
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Graham Leggett wrote:
> That's wonderful news for users. No longer do they download the tarball,
> build it, and enable the features they want, now they trawl the web
> looking for this module and that module - assuming they even know the
> modules exist in the first place.
>
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
> I don't understand what you're trying to solve here, and how this
> solves it.
It's an attempt to fix the mod_include
segfault. It "solves" it by setting r->uri to something valid rather than
setting it to "INTERNALLY GENERATED...". It's as yet unclear
I don't understand what you're trying to solve here, and how this solves it.
Cheers,
-g
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:15:37PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> $.10 hack. Works for me.
>
> The other solutions would require a rewrite of the logic. That
> is something I don't have time to do and
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:07:26PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:05:27PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> > Some performance results with mod_gz are available at
> > http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
> > (no core dumps.. pages look ok on a real browser while running test)
> > I'
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2001/08/29 18:23:08 $]
Release:
2.0.25 : rolled August 29, 2001
2.0.24 : rolled August 18, 2001
2.0.23 : rolled August 9, 2001
2.0.22 : rolled July 29, 2001
2.0.21 : rolle
APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2001/08/21 15:30:28 $]
Release:
1.3.21: In development
1.3.20: Tagged and rolled May 15, 2001. Announced May 21, 2001.
1.3.19: Tagged and rolled Feb 26, 2001. Announced Mar 01, 2001.
Ian Holsman wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:05:27PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
>>
>>> Some performance results with mod_gz are available at
>>> http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
>>> (no core dumps.. pages look ok on a real browser while running test)
>>> I'm going to be
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:34:30PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> I got 1 more question about the solaris implementation
> of the Threaded/Worker MPM.
>
>
> should we be called the setconcurrency flag on startup ?
> I know solaris figures it out along the way, but a bit of gentle
> prodding never h
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 11:34:24PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > hack did. Both will break if you have a relative path that goes UP at
> > least one directory first, since the strncmp will fail. You'll get back
>
> At least with mod_include, that
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 11:34:24PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> hack did. Both will break if you have a relative path that goes UP at
> least one directory first, since the strncmp will fail. You'll get back
At least with mod_include, that can never happen. It makes sure that
there are no ../
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> $.10 hack. Works for me.
>
> The other solutions would require a rewrite of the logic. That
> is something I don't have time to do and I also bet that OtherBill
> has ideas about how to fix this the "right way." Or not. =-)
>
> -if (strncmp(r
I got 1 more question about the solaris implementation
of the Threaded/Worker MPM.
should we be called the setconcurrency flag on startup ?
I know solaris figures it out along the way, but a bit of gentle
prodding never hurt.
..Ian
Brian Pane wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:19:50PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> Ah, I guess that explains why only a small fraction of pthread_mutex_lock
> calls on Solaris seem to result in calls to lwp_mutex_lock: in the fast
> case where the lock is available, it just stays in user-mode code?
Yes. -- justin
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:05:27PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>>Some performance results with mod_gz are available at
>>http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
>>(no core dumps.. pages look ok on a real browser while running test)
>>I'm going to be re-running the tests for a longe
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, john sachs wrote:
> i applied this patch and the mod_include test fails in the same spot
> as it has been. content file has:
>
> 'include file' with relative path to file not in same path as the file
> you are requesting.
Yep. This patch has no effect on that. It's probabl
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
[...]
>>* The discussion here covers only CPU utilization. There are other
>> aspects of performance, like multiprocessor scalability, that
>> are independent of this data.
>>
>
>Once we get the syscalls optimized (I'm reminded of Dean's attack
>on our number of sysca
$.10 hack. Works for me.
The other solutions would require a rewrite of the logic. That
is something I don't have time to do and I also bet that OtherBill
has ideas about how to fix this the "right way." Or not. =-)
-- justin
Index: server/request.c
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:05:27PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> Some performance results with mod_gz are available at
> http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
> (no core dumps.. pages look ok on a real browser while running test)
> I'm going to be re-running the tests for a longer period to see if
> there are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is a complete 'rewind' and 'restart' of Justin's
> original message (below) which kicked off the
> recent discussion.
>
> Since the options have narrowed to just 1... it's all
> simpler now.
>
> FWIW: +1 from me.
Some performance results with mod_gz are availa
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 06:42:10PM -0700, john sachs wrote:
> i applied this patch and the mod_include test fails in the same spot as it has been.
> content file has:
>
>
> 'include file' with relative path to file not in same path as the file you are
>requesting.
Well, in my defense, my patch
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
[...]
>Actually, I think the conditional should be:
>
>while (p <= he)
>
>Thoughts? We're scanning R->L, so p points to the end of the string.
>It is possible to have "
john sachs wrote:
> i applied this patch and the mod_include test fails in the same spot as it has been.
> content file has:
> +
Hi John.
This patch was not intended to fix this problem,
it was intended to speed up the 'finding' of the '"
or "<
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 07:15:13PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Actually, I think the conditional should be:
>
> while (p <= he)
>
> Thoughts? We're scanning R->L, so p points to the end of the string.
> It is possible to have "
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 07:11:37PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 06:46:45PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> > Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > >+/* Implements the BNDM search algorithm (as described above).
> > >+ *
> > >+ * n - the pattern to search for
> > >+ *
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 06:46:45PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> [...]
>
> >+/* Implements the BNDM search algorithm (as described above).
> >+ *
> >+ * n - the pattern to search for
> >+ * nl - length of the pattern to search for
> >+ * h - the string to look in
> >+ *
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
[...]
>+/* Implements the BNDM search algorithm (as described above).
>+ *
>+ * n - the pattern to search for
>+ * nl - length of the pattern to search for
>+ * h - the string to look in
>+ * hl - length of the string to look for
>+ * t - precompiled bndm structure aga
i applied this patch and the mod_include test fails in the same spot as it has been.
content file has:
'include file' with relative path to file not in same path as the file you are
requesting.
causes segv. here is stacktrace:
#0 0x80c4056 in ap_getparents (
name=0x816a840 "INTERNALLY G
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Due to comments made in a private email to
> myself and my company from one of your top level
> board members this is to inform everyone that we
> can stop this nonsense right now because there
> will BE no submission of mod_gzip for Apache 2.0
> to this group.
I sus
This is a complete 'rewind' and 'restart' of Justin's
original message (below) which kicked off the
recent discussion.
Since the options have narrowed to just 1... it's all
simpler now.
FWIW: +1 from me.
Yours...
Kevin Kiley
In a message dated 01-09-01 17:57:32 EDT, you write:
> Ian has pos
Okay, I've cleaned this up and I think it is ready for commit.
However, I'd really like some eyes on this. =-)
In Ian and Brian's testing, this does seem to make mod_include
faster. I can't guarantee that there aren't any bugs here,
but I've tested it with what I have and looked at the code a
Hello all...
Due to comments made in a private email to
myself and my company from one of your top level
board members this is to inform everyone that we
can stop this nonsense right now because there
will BE no submission of mod_gzip for Apache 2.0
to this group.
It shall remain a ( fully sup
Hello all...
Due to comments made in a private email to
myself and my company from one of your top level
board members this is to inform everyone that we
can stop this nonsense right now because there
will BE no submission of mod_gzip for Apache 2.0
to this group.
It shall remain a ( fully sup
[ Bringing this back on-list where it belongs... ]
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 03:37:42PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 2001-09-05 at 15:20, Brian Pane wrote:
> >
> >>Ian Holsman wrote:
> >>
> >>>Ok..
> >>>test is in there now...
> >>>with justin's patch.
> >>>I haven't
> In a message dated 01-09-05 16:14:01 EDT, Kevin Kiley wrote...
>
> > This is news to me, and certainly no permission has been
> > given to either Compaq nor Covalent to call anything a
> > 'Compaq Apache server.' I am on the ASF board and I
> > can tell you this has not come before us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Mr... I don't owe you or anyone else any fucking explanations
> for why I choose to contribute to a public domain software project.
True enough; thanks for answering the question. I was actually
asking abour RC, but forget it.
> Get off your pulpit.
How about a sw
In a message dated 01-09-05 17:43:30 EDT, you write:
> From: Peter J. Cranstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Kiss my ass...
>
> *delurk*
>
> That'll motivate three +1's for mod_gz real quick. :^)
>
> (No need for anyone to reply. Just cluttering the list with sophomoric
> humor.)
>
In a message dated 01-09-05 17:29:58 EDT, you write:
> True enough for everyone. (Except any who might be here as
> a job assignment.) The question I asked was, 'Why do you
> want to be here?' An answer of 'none of your business' is
> perfectly acceptable (though probably not constructive),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Do you moonlight as a preacher or something?
Nope.
> Do you judge everyone around you like this?
Considering that it was an observation rather than a judgement,
I suppose I can say that yes, I make observations like that
all the time.
> If you want to 'converse' w
From: Peter J. Cranstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Kiss my ass...
*delurk*
That'll motivate three +1's for mod_gz real quick. :^)
(No need for anyone to reply. Just cluttering the list with sophomoric
humor.)
-Charels
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 01-09-05 14:16:59 EDT, Marc wrote...
>
> > > After 3-4 years we know exactly how you work.
> >
> > Oh? Then what is the explanation for Kevin publicly soliciting
> > an individual to do something that recent discussion has shown
> > the group c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 01-09-05 16:14:01 EDT, you write:
>
> > This is news to me, and certainly no permission has been
> > given to either Compaq nor Covalent to call anything a
> > 'Compaq Apache server.' I am on the ASF board and I
> > can tell you this has not co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 01-09-05 14:44:54 EDT, Marc Selmko wrote...
>
> > And your motives are entirely altruistic? Why do I have
> > problems with that? See, if you were going about this right
> > it would not be RC versus AG, it would be 'us'.
>
> See previous mes
In a message dated 01-09-05 16:40:22 EDT, you write:
> But you do have one thing partly right, IMO -- trying to converse
> with you seems to frequently be an exercise in futility. That
> is a social issue, and if the rest of the group cannot have
> a reasonable conversation with a module dev
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 01-09-05 14:16:59 EDT, Marc Slemko wrote...
>
> > This is not technical, this is social and political.
>
> Then keep it off the forum... you fucking didactic
> self-righteous asshole.
As I said, invective time. As I also said, except to Peter
al
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That's the way it's always been.
> Your users are used to it.
What do you mean "your" users? *I* am a user, and complex configuration
pisses *me* off.
I am also a webmaster, and have had to put up with the Apache + mm +
mod_ssl + auth_ldap + mod_perl nonsense for ages
In a message dated 01-09-05 16:14:01 EDT, you write:
> This is news to me, and certainly no permission has been
> given to either Compaq nor Covalent to call anything a
> 'Compaq Apache server.' I am on the ASF board and I
> can tell you this has not come before us.
Actually... it's called t
> "Peter J. Cranstone" wrote:
> >
> > It was on a recent CNET release:
> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6963955.html
> >
> > "" Compaq Computer has signed a deal with Covalent Technology
> > to jointly develop and market Covalent's Apache Web server
> > software, the companies plan to anno
In a message dated 01-09-05 14:16:59 EDT, Marc wrote...
> > After 3-4 years we know exactly how you work.
>
> Oh? Then what is the explanation for Kevin publicly soliciting
> an individual to do something that recent discussion has shown
> the group considers moot?
I asked him what he 'th
In a message dated 01-09-05 14:44:54 EDT, Marc Selmko wrote...
> And your motives are entirely altruistic? Why do I have
> problems with that? See, if you were going about this right
> it would not be RC versus AG, it would be 'us'.
See previous message reagrding 'didactic self-righteous a
In a message dated 01-09-05 14:28:29 EDT, you write:
> That's wonderful news for users. No longer do they download the tarball,
> build it, and enable the features they want, now they trawl the web
> looking for this module and that module - assuming they even know the
> modules exist in the f
In a message dated 01-09-05 14:16:59 EDT, Marc Slemko wrote...
> This is not technical, this is social and political.
Then keep it off the forum... you fucking didactic self-righteous asshole.
When was the last fucking time you posted anything useful?
Send your 'social and political' commentar
"Peter J. Cranstone" wrote:
>
> Kiss my ass...
And now to the invective.
> I have work to do.
Which apparently does not include answering questions about
your previous posts. Well, you did answer one of the ones
about the 'Compaq Apache Server' thing, so thanks for that.
> You want to contin
"Peter J. Cranstone" wrote:
>
> It was on a recent CNET release:
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6963955.html
>
> "" Compaq Computer has signed a deal with Covalent Technology
> to jointly develop and market Covalent's Apache Web server
> software, the companies plan to announce Monday. "
Ken,
Kiss my ass... I have work to do. You want to continue the conversation
take it off line you know where I am.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ad
"Peter J. Cranstone" wrote:
>
> Conversation is over. I have nothing more to add. This whole
> conversation is degenerating into meaningless nonsense.
>
> Someone else can carry the thread.
This clever technique of ducking out of the conversation rather
than answering pointed questions is just
>> If somebody does find that name as a product anyplace, please let me
know ASAP.
It was on a recent CNET release:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6963955.html
"" Compaq Computer has signed a deal with Covalent Technology to jointly
develop and market Covalent's Apache Web server software,
Daniel Abad wrote:
>
> In my apache server, when I start it, I lost the connection with the
> network.
This is not the best place for this sort of question. I recommend
the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, develo
> > From a political standpoint I'm pissed that Covalent
> > Technologies can cut a deal with Compaq for the new
> > Compaq Apache server (wonder if it will ship with or
> > without compression (details are tough to find on this
> > whole deal).
>
> This is news to me, and certainly no permission
Guys,
Conversation is over. I have nothing more to add. This whole
conversation is degenerating into meaningless nonsense.
Someone else can carry the thread.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Eibner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:21 PM
To: [EMAI
Okay, I'll bite.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 01:46:55PM -0600, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
[Snip: nothing that hasn't been said in this thread before]
>
> If it's not technical, then it's social (you just plain don't like us...
> Not a problem) or political (the powers that be don't like us... Again
>
"Peter J. Cranstone" wrote:
>
> If there is a hidden agenda there then you're better than I
> at spotting it.
:
> Now tell me where the hidden agenda is.
If there were one, I would not be able to tell you because a) it
would be hidden, and b) it would be *your* agenda, not mine.
As it is
I really should just ignore this. But oh well
> From a political standpoint I'm pissed that Covalent Technologies can
> cut a deal with Compaq for the new Compaq Apache server (wonder if it
> will ship with or without compression (details are tough to find on this
> whole deal). But you
I suppose the only thing we can do is contribute. Kevin has, mod_gzip
was released under an ASF license which was approved by the ASF Board.
If there is a hidden agenda there then you're better than I at spotting
it.
Mod_gzip is available for 1.3.x
It will be available for 2.x when you hit beta.
> Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
> >>One phenomenon in the truss data looks a bit strange:
> >> http://webperf.org/a2/v25/truss.2001_01_04
> >>
> >>The server appears to be logging the request (the write to file descriptor
> >>4) before closing its connection to the client (the shutdown that
> >>follow
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>>Replaced Rabin-Karp with the bndm algorithm as implemented by
>>Sascha. Seems to work.
>>
>
>Is it faster?
>
I just tried this patch, and I'm seeing a 10% throughput improvement on
Linux
in some lightweight testing, compare
On Wed, 2001-09-05 at 12:10, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > Replaced Rabin-Karp with the bndm algorithm as implemented by
> > Sascha. Seems to work.
>
i'll crank up the benchmark boxes I used to test the other versions with
.. I'll have an answer to
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Replaced Rabin-Karp with the bndm algorithm as implemented by
> Sascha. Seems to work.
Is it faster?
Bill Stoddard wrote:
>>One phenomenon in the truss data looks a bit strange:
>> http://webperf.org/a2/v25/truss.2001_01_04
>>
>>The server appears to be logging the request (the write to file descriptor
>>4) before closing its connection to the client (the shutdown that
>>follows the
>>write).
Replaced Rabin-Karp with the bndm algorithm as implemented by
Sascha. Seems to work.
Can people please test/review? =-)
(I'll take care of the formatting and the pre-compilation if
this looks good...) -- justin
Index: modules/filters/mod_include.c
Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
> Can anybody suggest a reason that sub request methods would _not_
> default to the parent requests method?
Well, consider the situation of the parent request using POST.
When you constructed your subrequest you would need to also
provide an entity-body or explicitly
On 5 Sep 2001, Ian Holsman wrote:
> hi.
> just wondering if anyone care's for Cliff's fix to this
> core dump that he posted a while back
I never even convinced _myself_ that it was the Right Way, since the whole
purpose of the INTERNALLY GENERATED FUBAR r->uri is that there might not
even be a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Despite yours and Peters pushing and stressing and
> > overbearing "sell job" to get mod_gz(ip)
> > type functionality into the core, it was just
> > preaching to the choir. (well, okay: maybe Ryan
> > didn't want to see it in there :-) That sell job mostly
> > ser
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 09:47:04AM -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Whoa, deja vu... I could have sworn I fixed something very similar to
> this more than 5 years ago now. In fact, here is the patch for Apache
> 1.2.x:
>
> Fri Mar 1 03:01:06 1996 UTC (66 months, 1 week ago)
> http://cvs.apache.or
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 11:28:59AM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> hi.
> just wondering if anyone care's for Cliff's fix to this
> core dump that he posted a while back
I think OtherBill said he was going to fix this the "right way."
I forget what the right way is.
I think he's in an airplane now, s
On Wednesday 05 September 2001 11:27, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Doug MacEachern wrote:
> > for new modules? no, you create a separate tree for the new module
> > (either on apache.org or sourceforge or your own laptop or wherever).
> > if the httpd-2.0 tree needs tweaking for smooth integration of
Roy-Magne Mo wrote:
>
> Does anyone care to check this new translation into CVS. This a
> translation to the other of the two norwegian languages.
>
> Files name is index.html.nn
>
> The file could be found at:
> http://www.sunnmore.net/nynorsk/index.html.nn
This should probably go to the docc
hi.
just wondering if anyone care's for Cliff's fix to this
core dump that he posted a while back
..Ian
--
Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Performance Measurement & Analysis
CNET Networks - (415) 364-8608
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> for new modules? no, you create a separate tree for the new module
> (either on apache.org or sourceforge or your own laptop or wherever).
> if the httpd-2.0 tree needs tweaking for smooth integration of a new
> module, that's fine.
That's wonderful news for users. No l
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Graham Leggett wrote:
> v2.0 represents the latest bleeding egde server development. Until a
> v2.1 development tree exists then there is no choice but to commit
> things to v2.0.
for new modules? no, you create a separate tree for the new module
(either on apache.org or so
"Peter J. Cranstone" wrote:
>
> After 3-4 years we know exactly how you work.
Oh? Then what is the explanation for Kevin publicly soliciting
an individual to do something that recent discussion has shown
the group considers moot?
Regardless of facts, it is perception that matters. Not speakin
On Wednesday 05 September 2001 11:09, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Doug MacEachern wrote:
> > we're in the 9th month of year 2001, i saw the first glimpse of a '2.0'
> > server in early 1996 (rob thau's), i have no problem waiting longer for
> > bug fixes, performance, "doing things right", etc., but t
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> we're in the 9th month of year 2001, i saw the first glimpse of a '2.0'
> server in early 1996 (rob thau's), i have no problem waiting longer for
> bug fixes, performance, "doing things right", etc., but there is no good
> reason to add new modules or big features at this
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> > > Ryan himself said he prefers 3 right off the bat when Jerry
> > > said 'Let's dump Ian's mod_gz into the core!' which is what
> > > started this whole entire thread.
> >
> > Ask him what he thinks now :-) Knowing Ryan, he is probably fine with
> > a
After 3-4 years we know exactly how you work.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 11:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Ian... are you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Ian... are you a committer?
> What do you say about adding ZLIB to Apache source ASAP.
> Yea or nay?
This only demonstrates your non-understanding of how we work,
and/or how to work with us.
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Greg Stein wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 11:56:48PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>...
>>You were discussing the possibility of parsing for
On Wednesday 05 September 2001 09:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> trawick 01/09/05 09:40:35
>
> Modified:.configure.in
> Log:
> on AIX we need to pass in --disable-shared to apr and apr-util
> configurations; otherwise we get goofy executable files
>
> obviously libtool is
Whoa, deja vu... I could have sworn I fixed something very similar to
this more than 5 years ago now. In fact, here is the patch for Apache
1.2.x:
Fri Mar 1 03:01:06 1996 UTC (66 months, 1 week ago)
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/apache-1.2/src/http_request.c.diff?r1=1.2&r2=1.3
Not exactly
I can post my code to the skip5 implementation.
it isn't optimized yet, but in my tests I see a lower
CPU utilization than the standard mod-includes parser
(parsing a file with no SSI tags)
It handles bucket boundries well. (in most cases, it's not perfect on
the ---> tag falling on a boundry)
I
On Wed, 2001-09-05 at 00:45, Eli Marmor wrote:
> Brian Pane wrote:
>
> > http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
>
> From that page:
>
> > Tests run on the 9 of September
>
> I guess that one of the tools that Apache is using now, is Time Machine ;-)
> Or the year is "2000"? ;-)
>
doing 3 things at the
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
