Re: mod_include patch

2004-10-20 Thread Torsten Förtsch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 20 October 2004 18:49, André Malo wrote: > > I want to use SSI with CGI scripts. Thus, I have configured the INCLUDES > > filter for my cgi-bin. But my CGI scripts generate not only text/html > > documents. Hence my problem, I want to say

[STATUS] (httpd-2.1) Wed Oct 20 23:45:16 EDT 2004

2004-10-20 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
APACHE 2.1 STATUS: -*-text-*- Last modified at [$Date: 2004/09/03 02:47:19 $] Release [NOTE that only Alpha/Beta releases occur in 2.1 development]: 2.1.0 : in development Please consult the following STATUS files for information on related proj

[STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Oct 20 23:45:12 EDT 2004

2004-10-20 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*- Last modified at [$Date: 2004/10/19 00:07:54 $] Release: 2.0.53 : in development 2.0.52 : released September 28, 2005 as GA. 2.0.51 : released September 15, 2004 as GA. 2.0.50 : released June 30, 2004 a

[STATUS] (apache-1.3) Wed Oct 20 23:45:07 EDT 2004

2004-10-20 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*- Last modified at [$Date: 2004/10/18 16:40:39 $] Release: 1.3.33-dev: In development 1.3.32: Tagged October 18, 2004. 1.3.31: Tagged May 7, 2004. Announced May 11, 2004. 1.3.30: Tagged April 9, 2004. Not relea

Re: Apache with Security Processor - Interesting

2004-10-20 Thread Geoff Thorpe
On October 20, 2004 02:44 am, Madhusudan Mathihalli wrote: > If ppl think it'll be a good addition to Apache, I can clean it up and > try to commit it sometime tomorrow. Did the control-command support ever make it into a cvs-worthy form? That's a far more general way to squash this issue. I coul

Re: Use of X509_NAME_oneline in mod_ssl

2004-10-20 Thread Sander Temme
On Oct 20, 2004, at 8:50 AM, Madhusudan Mathihalli wrote: The one concern is that if we end up exporting both _DN and _2253DN formats, it'll have a performance impact on Apache. As it stands now, Apache is around 50% slower than Zeus (even with SPECweb2003). SPECWeb99 doesn't require any SSL enviro

Re: mod_include patch

2004-10-20 Thread André Malo
* Torsten Förtsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I want to use SSI with CGI scripts. Thus, I have configured the INCLUDES > filter for my cgi-bin. But my CGI scripts generate not only text/html > documents. Hence my problem, I want to say mod_include to handle only > documents with content-type t

Re: Use of X509_NAME_oneline in mod_ssl

2004-10-20 Thread Madhusudan Mathihalli
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:02:19 +0100, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 08:50:50AM -0700, Madhusudan Mathihalli wrote: > > The one concern is that if we end up exporting both _DN and _2253DN > > formats, it'll have a performance impact on Apache. As it stands now, > > Apa

mod_include patch

2004-10-20 Thread Torsten Förtsch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi. I want to use SSI with CGI scripts. Thus, I have configured the INCLUDES filter for my cgi-bin. But my CGI scripts generate not only text/html documents. Hence my problem, I want to say mod_include to handle only documents with content-type tex

Re: Use of X509_NAME_oneline in mod_ssl

2004-10-20 Thread Joe Orton
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 08:50:50AM -0700, Madhusudan Mathihalli wrote: > The one concern is that if we end up exporting both _DN and _2253DN > formats, it'll have a performance impact on Apache. As it stands now, > Apache is around 50% slower than Zeus (even with SPECweb2003). Is that with +StdEnv

Re: Use of X509_NAME_oneline in mod_ssl

2004-10-20 Thread Madhusudan Mathihalli
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:37:01 +0100, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 12:13:14AM -0700, Madhusudan Mathihalli wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:58:57 +0100, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Changing just the _DN variable format with a config directive sounds O

Re: mod_proxy reverse proxy optimization/performance question

2004-10-20 Thread Bill Stoddard
Graham Leggett wrote: Roman Gavrilov wrote: In my opinion it would be more efficient to let one process complete the request (using maximum line throughput) and return some busy code to other identical, simultaneous requests until the file is cached locally. As anyone run into a similar situati

Re: mod_proxy reverse proxy optimization/performance question

2004-10-20 Thread Graham Leggett
Roman Gavrilov wrote: In my opinion it would be more efficient to let one process complete the request (using maximum line throughput) and return some busy code to other identical, simultaneous requests until the file is cached locally. As anyone run into a similar situation? What solution did y

mod_proxy reverse proxy optimization/performance question

2004-10-20 Thread Roman Gavrilov
I am using a reverse proxy to cache a remote site. The files are mostly rpms, with varying sizes: 3-30M or more. Now if you have a number of requests for the same file which is not yet cached locally, all of these requests will download the requested file from the remote site. It will slow down

Re: Apache with Security Processor - Interesting

2004-10-20 Thread V. T. Mueller, Continum
On Donnerstag, 14. Oktober 2004, Joe Orton wrote: > The key questions are what OS are you using, and do you have a driver > for the card which supports the /dev/cryptonet interface? The BCM 5820 > card works fine in Linux if you have an appropriate driver, I don't know > about other OSs, probably

Re: Use of X509_NAME_oneline in mod_ssl

2004-10-20 Thread Joe Orton
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 12:13:14AM -0700, Madhusudan Mathihalli wrote: > On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:58:57 +0100, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Changing just the _DN variable format with a config directive sounds OK. > > Adding new variables would be an alternative, but the names would > > pr

Re: Use of X509_NAME_oneline in mod_ssl

2004-10-20 Thread Madhusudan Mathihalli
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:58:57 +0100, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Changing just the _DN variable format with a config directive sounds OK. > Adding new variables would be an alternative, but the names would > probably get *really* ugly... > That is correct - I should've been more clear in

Re: Use of X509_NAME_oneline in mod_ssl

2004-10-20 Thread Madhusudan Mathihalli
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:46:20 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 12:17 PM 10/15/2004, Madhusudan Mathihalli wrote: > >Hi, > > > > The current mod_ssl uses X509_NAME_oneline to get a one-line ASCII > >format of the DN. This however, is not compliant with the RFC - > >checkou