On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Isolating processors is not enough. Your bottleneck is probably the
> memory backplane (or disk thoroughput) which doesn't partition. The
A very good point.
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Min Xu wrote:
> I don't understand, if the client is blocked, it only be woke up when
> the server reply is avaiable. In that case, the server should have done
> it is job. In other words, the client is not spinning, it is instead
> put on sleep when calling read syscall.
Of
--On Tuesday, February 11, 2003 7:05 PM -0600 Min Xu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
case. On the other hand, I have used solaris "psrset" to logically
divide the 14p server into "two" machines, and I bind the server
and the client to different processor sets. And the results shows
again the small del
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 08:09:14PM -0500, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Min Xu wrote:
>
> > Well, I am not defending this server/client-on-one-system is better
> > or anything. Just want to understand this better. Isn't the clients
> > block when the servers can not response? From a
Looking through the docs for mod_auth_ldap and then finally the code, I
could not see a way to specify the certificates used to connect with a
secure ldap server. Is there a way to specify these values that I am
not aware of?
I know when using OpenLDAP's ldapsearch you can use a ldaprc file to
sp
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Min Xu wrote:
> Well, I am not defending this server/client-on-one-system is better
> or anything. Just want to understand this better. Isn't the clients
> block when the servers can not response? From a higher level of point
> of view, the system is a closed queuing system. I
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:11:36PM -0800, David Burry wrote:
> Because the client will contend very heavily with the server for many
> system resources. It's indeterminate which one (client or server)
> requires more resources, which one wins more, and how much more of which
> resources.
Well, I
> > >I am running the server/client on the
> > >same machine.
> >
> > You will not get reliable results by doing this.
>
> Can you elaborate why? Plus we were forced to do this,
> but would like to avoid in the future if it really affects
> our results.
Because the client will contend very heavi
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 01:13 PM, Min Xu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 01:00:53PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 11:34 AM, Min Xu wrote:
I am running the server/client on the
same machine.
You will not get reliable results by doing this.
Can you
(I'm currently working on a forward port of mod_actions' ability to handle
any arbitrary method. This can simply be done by registering the particular
method, but ...)
The current method registry is a static hash. Hmm. Once an unknown method
is used (say, in in directory context), it will be r
Cool..
Can you please post the patch to the list, so that ppl can review the code,
and give their comments.
-Madhu
>-Original Message-
>From: Maik Mueller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:26 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED
It is a simple hack based off of mod_authn_dbm, and mod_digest_mysql using the
new Auth*Providers in Apache 2.1/2.2
It hasn't had much testing except for internaly so far, So I wouldn't be
surprised if there are some bugs.
You can download it from:
http://open.cyanworlds.com/
With the new Auth*P
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 01:00:53PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 11:34 AM, Min Xu wrote:
> >I am running the server/client on the
> >same machine.
>
> You will not get reliable results by doing this.
Can you elaborate why? Plus we were forced to do this, but
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 11:34 AM, Min Xu wrote:
I am running the server/client on the
same machine.
You will not get reliable results by doing this.
-aaron
Hello All,
I want to provide updated information to my earlier described scenario using
mod_ssl + mod_proxy + mod_headers:
Component: Web Browser --- Proxy (mod_proxy) --- Web Server
SSL Role: SSL Client --- SSL server | SSL Client --- SSL Server
The following discussion focuses
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 10:08:29AM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> A couple questions and a couple observations:
>
> 1) How many network cards are in the server? (How many unique
>interrupt handlers for the network?)
There are two network cards in the server, but I don't think they
are used in
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'm very close to an outright veto of such a change, at this time...
forget it.
Not only is the binary interface to sendfile broken now, the source interface is
broken too. Since there was no mmn bump, there is no reasonable way a module
which ships independently
A couple questions and a couple observations:
1) How many network cards are in the server? (How many unique
interrupt handlers for the network?)
2) How much context switching was going on, and how impacted
were the mutexes (see mpstat)?
3) Was the workload uniformly distributed across the
Thanks to Owen Garrett, who reminded me that I should have
mentioned a little more details about the client configuration.
My modified SURGE client fetch web pages on an "object" basis,
each object contains multiple pages. For each object the client
uses HTTP/1.1 keepalive, but not pipeline. After
2.1 was started so that 2.0 can remain stable from here on out instead of
changing the 2.0 API with every minor release, requiring everyone to re-port
their modules with every minor 2.0 release so the fact that 2.1 exists
is a very good sign for 2.0!
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "
Sometimes it's useful to have comments in the configure cruft, but yeah
the dnl's should stay.
-aaron
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 08:51 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:36 PM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jorton 2003/02/11 07:36:56
Modified:.
* André Malo wrote:
[guessing the domain attribute in mod_auth_digest]
> The guessing code is somewhat weird anyway.
We should drop it entirely. Our own docs say:
[AuthDigestDomain]
This directive should always be specified and contain at least the (set of)
root URI(s) for this space. Omitting
Hi,
Following this thread, I was wondering what the majority thinks
is a best way forward. Currently, not many modules are ready
for Apache 2.0 regardless the reasons.
But it seems already that work is done for Apache 2.1 and
people have to port their module again.
OK, the module API is almost eq
23 matches
Mail list logo
