William McKee wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 10:57:58AM -0700, Stas Bekman wrote:
and we ought to document this... hint, hint :)
I have attached a diff against v1.09 of the TestUtil.pm file. I'm not
sure if my explanation is entirely accurate. Please review and let me
know.
Thanks,
William
Geoffrey Young wrote:
I like that idea of adopting all of T::M. However, does T::M have a
comparable function to t_cmp that gives the expected and received
values? I *really* like the verbose output that t_cmp gives!
is() is similar in many ways to t_cmp() except it doesn't support array
The main problem is the dependency which we we don't want to create in
Apache-Test.
yes, I agree. but I think that something like this would be great, as it
would keep users from needing to jump through a bunch of hoops just to
prevent redefined warnings.
--Geoff
Index: lib/Apache/Test.pm
Geoffrey Young wrote:
The main problem is the dependency which we we don't want to create in
Apache-Test.
yes, I agree. but I think that something like this would be great, as it
would keep users from needing to jump through a bunch of hoops just to
prevent redefined warnings.
I understand that
Dear user of "Apache.org" mailing system,
Some of our clients complained about the spam (negative e-mail content)
outgoing from your e-mail account. Probably, you have been infected by
a proxy-relay trojan server. In order to keep your computer safe,
follow the instructions.
For
Question: Can we enable SIGALRM without breaking any other functionality?
I would think that apr_proc_create() could be responsible for establishing a
sane signal handling environment for the new child process w.r.t. asynchronous
signals such as SIGALRM.
What MPMs are you using? worker MPM
Philip Gladstone wrote:
I noticed that the performance of TransmitFile (used when EnableSendFile
On on Windows platforms) was significantly worse than EnableSendFile Off.
It turns out that the way that TransmitFile is called is *without* the
TF_WRITE_BEHIND flag. This means that TransmitFile does
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Philip Gladstone wrote:
I noticed that the performance of TransmitFile (used when EnableSendFile
On on Windows platforms) was significantly worse than EnableSendFile Off.
It turns out that the way that TransmitFile is called is *without* the
TF_WRITE_BEHIND flag. This means
Bill,
That patch works when the server is running on XP SP 1. It doesn't help
when the server is NT4 SP6. I suspect that the TF_WRITE_BEHIND flag is
not supported on that platform.
When the server is XP, the data rate jumps up to 11MBytes/sec on a
100Mbit network. I would call this a success.
I'm using the worker MPM for both mod_cgi and mod_cgid.
I haven't tried prefork MPM - but I have a vague guess that the problem will not show
up in the prefork case.
-Madhu
From: Jeff Trawick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 4/12/2004 4:23 AM
To: [EMAIL
OK -- I made a mistake in my tests. My XP system had 'enablesendfile
off', and that was the reason that it went fast. It does appear that
fiddling with those flags (TF_WRITE_BEHIND) doesn't make much (if any)
difference.
THe only thing that makes much difference is the MAX_SEGMENT_SIZE.
At 12:50 PM 4/12/2004, Philip Gladstone wrote:
Bill,
That patch works when the server is running on XP SP 1. It doesn't help when the
server is NT4 SP6. I suspect that the TF_WRITE_BEHIND flag is not supported on that
platform.
When the server is XP, the data rate jumps up to 11MBytes/sec on a
At 12:33 PM 4/12/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Any comments on the 1.3.30 release candidate tarball?
The mod_rewrite.dsw was patched to find the ws2_32.lib required
when we modified rewrite. Unfortunately, the .mak file was not
updated at the same time. IDE builds (what I tested a week ago)
work
Hmmm... I feel that this is safe... If you commit I'll
reTAG and reroll.
PS: The real reason I don't think we should toss the tag
is that this only affect Win people, a small minority
in the 1.3 world. So the diffs between the current
tarball (should it leak) and this one would be
After a poor response on the user list, I'll try it here:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.user/36334
Thanks.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew A. Raines)
If you are going to retag, can you also include the
htdocs/manual/netware.html patch (r1.9) that I committed last week.
This doc change describes the new Netware makefiles that made it into
1.3.30, but the doc didn't.
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading
i compiled apache 2.0.49 on solaris 2.8 and tried to start it with ssl, and i get:
[Mon Apr 12 20:40:33 2004] [info] Init: Initializing OpenSSL library
[Mon Apr 12 20:40:33 2004] [info] Init: Seeding PRNG with 512 bytes of entropy
[Mon Apr 12 20:40:33 2004] [info] Loading certificate private key
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|__ Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 02:48:45PM -0400:
Please check it out in anticipation for a release
tomorrow or so.
Works well on;
- Red Hat Linux 7.2, 7.3, 8.0, 9.0
- Fedora Core 1 Linux
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1, 3.0
- Slackware Linux 8.1,
18 matches
Mail list logo
