fabio rohrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't get the difference between mod_deflate and the
famous gzip!
Can they work together,and what it's the difference
between them?
Use one or the other for compression of HTTP. They can't work
together because they perform basically the same
fabio rohrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The reduced space of each page will be saved in a log
file, and the web admin. can decide if the space saved
is a good quantity and to use or not the mod_blank
with that web page.
Look at how mod_deflate can optionally log the compression ratio.
That
Randall Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The idea behind this is that SCTP is automatically enabled if
available... i.e. there is no flag to turn it on/off.. if you say
listen 80
and have sctp.. you get a listener on both TCP and SCTP port 80.
Now the reason I picked this method is:
a)
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--On Friday, November 01, 2002 16:02:45 -0800 Rob Emanuele
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I took the mod_auth_digest code and munged it to use mysql for
authentication. Swell. It works great and we're heavily using it.
If you'd be willing to
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Randall Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The idea behind this is that SCTP is automatically enabled if
available... i.e. there is no flag to turn it on/off.. if you say
listen 80
and have sctp.. you get a listener on both TCP and SCTP port 80.
Now the reason I picked this
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Randall Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The idea behind this is that SCTP is automatically enabled if
available... i.e. there is no flag to turn it on/off.. if you say
listen 80
and have sctp.. you get a listener on both TCP and SCTP port 80.
Now the reason I
If you do: SetOutputFilter BLANK;DEFLATE should work with no problems.
Best regards,
Juan C. Rivera
Citrix Systems, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:jerenkrantz;apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 2:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mod_blank dev
Randall Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
hmmm so what I think you are saying is that if only one
port is listened to all children can do a poll() on the sd otherwise
you must have only one thread to the poll() I guess so it could
dispatch out the work...
Bill answered this.
Do you suggest
At 03:50 PM 11/1/2002, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 06:07:53PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
+++ BaseAddr.ref1 Nov 2002 18:07:52 - 1.22
@@ -60,3 +60,4 @@
mod_authz_groupfile 0x6FB10x0001
mod_authz_host 0x6FB00x0001
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't buy that logic at all. Why should we be returning
APR_SUCCESS here? We want to signal an error, so that the filters
stop what they are doing and exit.
Talk to Ryan :)
Well, he ain't here no more. Just us folks. Do you (or anyone
Recently there has been a little discussion about an API in apache for
controlling starts, stops, restarts, etc...
I have an idea that may help me solve a problem I've been having. The
problem is in limiting the number of processes that will run on a machine to
somewhere below where the machine
In my ideal world every config directive would be able to advertize or
register an optional 'has changed' hook. Which, if present, would be
called in context whenever a value is somehow updated (through snmp, a
configd, signal, wathever). If there is no such hook; the old -update- on
graceful
I'm making another pass at this code in a week or so. Is there any
stable tree that has the new provider code in it or shall I get the
bleeding-edge code out of CVS?
Thanks,
Rob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:trawick;rdu74-177-063.nc.rr.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
måndagen den 4 november 2002 19.26 skrev Rob Emanuele:
I'm making another pass at this code in a week or so. Is there any
stable tree that has the new provider code in it or shall I get the
bleeding-edge code out of CVS?
why no mod_log_mysql
?
--
Regards // Oden Eriksson, Deserve-IT
I realize that allowing _everything_ to be dynamically configured via SNMP
(or signal or something) would probably be too substantial of an API change
to be considered for the current code base, but it would be nice to consider
it for some future major revision of Apache
And it would be more
Based on my experience, this wouldn't be a high-quality solution, it would
be a hack. I've seen very few cases where load spiked enough to be an
issue, but was transient enough that a solution like this would work - and
in those cases, plain old Unix multitasking normally suffices.
What happens
OOPS, sorry. I was following the mod_apachecon.c, which seems a bit out
of date :-(
Bojan
On Sat, 2002-11-02 at 05:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
wrowe 2002/11/01 10:07:53
Modified:os/win32 BaseAddr.ref
modules/loggers mod_logio.c
Log:
Well that was a little
Interesting comments, thanks. You obviously speak from experience.
The idea I was having is that no matter how overloaded a machine becomes, it should
never run so far out of resources that it dies, but there should be some kind of limit
in place... I thought this was what MaxClients was for,
On 5 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-if (APR_STATUS_IS_EOF(status) (status != APR_SUCCESS)) {
+if (!APR_STATUS_IS_EOF(status) (status != APR_SUCCESS)) {
break;
}
Ohhh now THAT makes sense. :) Okay. :)
--Cliff
19 matches
Mail list logo
