On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 01:38:53AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > wrowe 2002/06/23 21:50:41
> >
> > Added: include ap_regkey.h
> >os/win32 ap_regkey.c
> > Log:
> > Introduce win32 registry handling through a very apr-ish int
On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 23:12, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
> > Yack... just noticed this too. This renders the fd cache (in
> > mod_mem_cache) virtually useless. Not sure why we cannot setaside a fd.
>
> You can. The buckets code is smart enough to (a) take
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> wrowe 2002/06/23 21:50:41
>
> Added: include ap_regkey.h
>os/win32 ap_regkey.c
> Log:
> Introduce win32 registry handling through a very apr-ish interface.
> Deals with apr utf-8 encoding of filesystem values, so we preserve
>
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> You can. The buckets code is smart enough to (a) take no action if the
> apr_file_t is already in an ancestor pool of the one you're asking to
> setaside into and (b) just use apr_file_dup() to get it into the requested
> pool otherwise to handle the p
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Yack... just noticed this too. This renders the fd cache (in
> mod_mem_cache) virtually useless. Not sure why we cannot setaside a fd.
You can. The buckets code is smart enough to (a) take no action if the
apr_file_t is already in an ancestor pool of
> Bill Stoddard wrote:
> .
>
> >So changing the AP_MIN_BYTES_TO_WRITE just moves the relative postion of the write()
and
> >the check pipeline read.
> >
>
> It has one other side-effect, though, and that's what's bothering me:
> In the case where core_output_filter() decides to buffer a resp
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 01:07:48AM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> Anyway, what I'm saying is: don't make design decisions of this type based
> only on the results of an ab run.
+1
I think at this point ab should have the ability to interleave issuing
new connections, handling current requests, an
Bill Stoddard wrote:
.
>So changing the AP_MIN_BYTES_TO_WRITE just moves the relative postion of the write()
>and
>the check pipeline read.
>
It has one other side-effect, though, and that's what's bothering me:
In the case where core_output_filter() decides to buffer a response because
it'
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Arliss, Noah wrote:
> I've started playing with apache 2.0 with respect to writing modules and I
> was wondering if there was an ETA for more relavent up to date documentation
> for developers. Many of the documents including the API document have
> disclaimers saying "Warnin
> On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 20:58, Brian Pane wrote:
>
> > For what it's worth, I just tried the test case that you posted. On my
> > test system, 2.0 is faster when I run ab without -k, and 1.3 is faster
> > when I run with -k.
>
> I studied this test case and found out why 2.0 runs faster in the
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
> size is only 1KB, so core_output_filter reads in and buffers the
> contents of 8 requests before it finally reaches the 8KB threshold
> and starts calling writev. 1.3, in contrast, writes out each
> request's response immediately, with no buffering.
I th
On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 09:44:03PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-06-22 at 17:01, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > I believe that the problem is platform specific. The reason that loop
> > was added, was to allow for graceless shutdown on linux. On non-linux
> > platforms, killing the main thread
On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 08:20:23PM -0700, Roy Fielding wrote:
> >I don't remember seeing any +1's for this patch on the list.
>
> I don't remember needing any. There were no -1 with explanations.
> There certainly hasn't been any effort spent, aside from my own, to
> address the needs of those w
Hi Rasmus..
I did the same test (without Keepalives) on my machine and found that
for the static HTML page Apache 2.0 was nearly the same.
Script is attached.. basic summary
For Static Files:
version
5 concurrent20 concurrent
1.3.26
429.39 418.62
2.0.40-d
430.08
On Sat, 2002-06-22 at 17:01, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> I believe that the problem is platform specific. The reason that loop
> was added, was to allow for graceless shutdown on linux. On non-linux
> platforms, killing the main thread kills the whole process, but on linux
> this doesn't work. The poin
On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 20:58, Brian Pane wrote:
> For what it's worth, I just tried the test case that you posted. On my
> test system, 2.0 is faster when I run ab without -k, and 1.3 is faster
> when I run with -k.
I studied this test case and found out why 2.0 runs faster in the
non-keepalive
On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 18:58, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Someone asked me for numbers when I mentioned the other day that Apache
> 2-prefork was really not a viable drop-in replacement for Apache 1.3 when
> it comes to running a PHP-enabled server.
>
> Apache 1.3 is still significantly faster than A
> I don't remember seeing any +1's for this patch on the list.
I don't remember needing any. There were no -1 with explanations.
There certainly hasn't been any effort spent, aside from my own, to
address the needs of those who cannot upgrade. You guys punted, so
I picked up the ball and finish
> From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 05:09:05PM -0700, Roy Fielding wrote:
> > I have re-uploaded a patch to fix the problem on all versions of
> > httpd 1.2.0 through 1.3.22. This time I added the four lines that
> > check for a negative return value from
On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 05:09:05PM -0700, Roy Fielding wrote:
> I have re-uploaded a patch to fix the problem on all versions of
> httpd 1.2.0 through 1.3.22. This time I added the four lines that
> check for a negative return value from atol, even though there has
> been no evidence of any such
-Forwarded Message-
From: Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Query: bugs 8712 and 10156
Date: 23 Jun 2002 15:19:31 -0500
I submitted 8712 a month or more ago, and have gotten NO feedback at
all.
I just submitted 10156 and wonder what it would take to get t
Hi All
can anyone give me some idea on what i am doing wrong
trying to install apache 1.3.24
./configure --add-module=mod_frontpage.c
keep getting the error
mod_frontpage.c:896:6: unterminated comment
mod_frontpage.c:895:27: unterminated #ifdef
make[4]: *** [mod_frontpage.o] Error 1
cheers
J
Someone asked me for numbers when I mentioned the other day that Apache
2-prefork was really not a viable drop-in replacement for Apache 1.3 when
it comes to running a PHP-enabled server.
Apache 1.3 is still significantly faster than Apache2-prefork for both
static and dynamic content. Now, part
User rasmus already has karma. apache-2.0 is not what you are looking for,
try the module httpd-2.0.
Roy
On Sunday, June 23, 2002, at 05:30 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Could someone karma me for apache-2.0 please?
>
> -Rasmus
>
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Could someone karma me for apache-2.0 please?
You should use httpd-2.0. The apache-2.0 repository was abandoned long
ago. And it looks to me from avail like you already have karma for it
(it's the same group as for apache-1.3).
--Cliff
Could someone karma me for apache-2.0 please?
-Rasmus
I have re-uploaded a patch to fix the problem on all versions of
httpd 1.2.0 through 1.3.22. This time I added the four lines that
check for a negative return value from atol, even though there has
been no evidence of any such error in the standard C libraries.
To the person who deleted my prior
I believe that the problem is platform specific. The reason that loop
was added, was to allow for graceless shutdown on linux. On non-linux
platforms, killing the main thread kills the whole process, but on linux
this doesn't work. The point of closing the sockets was to force the
worker thread
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:57:00 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about
"[RHSA-2002:103-13] Updated Apache packages fix chunked encoding issue":
> We have backported the security fix from the official Apache 1.3.26
> release. This should help minimize the impact of upgrading to our errata
> packages.
On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 01:18, Eli Marmor wrote:
> Brian Pane wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2002-06-22 at 13:56, Perry Harrington wrote:
> > > There is a bug in fix_hostname. The comment above function says that the
>hostname
> > > is lowercased, but it's not.
> > >
> > > the line which reads:
> > >
> >
Brian Pane wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2002-06-22 at 13:56, Perry Harrington wrote:
> > There is a bug in fix_hostname. The comment above function says that the hostname
> > is lowercased, but it's not.
> >
> > the line which reads:
> >
> > *dst++ = *src++;
> ...
> > should read:
> >
> >
On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 06:42:14AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> wrowe 2002/06/22 23:42:14
>
> Modified:modules/dav/main liveprop.c mod_dav.c mod_dav.h props.c
> std_liveprop.c util.c util_lock.c
> Log:
> The real pain. ap->apr xml and text types.
h
32 matches
Mail list logo
