Ah, and yes, Apache 1.3 on FreeBSD 4.9 is compiled with -DBUFFERED_LOGS.
Apache 2.0 on Linux, which is less prone to getting stuck, is from
unstable Debian package, compiled without buffered logs.
arkadi.
Hi to all,
Apache 2 (2.0.48/2.0.49) got problems at restart time (SIGUSR1) when
rotating its log.
[Thu Feb 24 04:15:11 2005] [notice] Apache/2.0.48 (Linux/SuSE)
configured -- resuming normal operations
[Fri Feb 25 04:15:15 2005] [notice] SIGUSR1 received. Doing graceful restart
Syntax error on
Are there anybody tried compile Apache under MinGW? Running conf script
terminate with this error:
...
checking for mmap... no
checking for munmap... no
checking for shm_open... no
checking for shm_unlink... no
checking for shmget... no
checking for shmat... no
checking for shmdt... no
checking
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:11:49 -0800, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think extending ExtendedStatus to take [time,uri,module,phase] or
something like it might be the best route. ('on' could easily set
options for backwards compat).
defer those details until it is obvious that others
Wow :) That would be extraordinarily useful. Any hope the scheme
would be extensible, so a module such as cgi or rewrite could show
more specific Phases? This sounds like a very worthwhile API change
to slip in before 2.2 comes out.
Bill
At 02:20 PM 2/26/2005, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Normally,
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:39:06 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow :) That would be extraordinarily useful. Any hope the scheme
would be extensible, so a module such as cgi or rewrite could show
more specific Phases?
I'm leaning towards having completely accurate info
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:39:06 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow :) That would be extraordinarily useful. Any hope the scheme
would be extensible, so a module such as cgi or rewrite could show
more specific Phases?
I'm leaning towards having
Removes formatting (\t, \n) that would otherwise be escaped (by
ap_escape_errorlog_item) and clutter log entries.
Searched with egrep -C5 -n -r '\\t|\\r|\\n|EOL_STR' . | grep ap_log
--
Eric Covener
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
remove_control_chars-1.3.x.patch
Description: Binary data
Fascinating reading (see the bottom two tables of these pages:
http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200501/srvch.html?server=Apacherevision=Apache%2F1.3.33
http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200501/srvch.html?server=Apacherevision=Apache%2F2.0.52
What is notable is that
William A. Rowe, Jr. writes:
I'd argue the opposite, we aren't refining 2.x sufficiently for folks to garner an advantage over using 1.3. It simply isn't more effective for them to use 2.0 (having tried both.)
William, I would have to agree. Honestly, I have personally seen the
business
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:09:55 +, Wayne S. Frazee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A move to 2.0 or 2.1 will take place gradually over time, I think, once
PHP can be used with some expectation of stability on a
non-prefork-MPM. Note: I am not insinuating PHP is not thread safe, but
rather many
Paul A. Houle writes:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:09:55 +, Wayne S. Frazee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A move to 2.0 or 2.1 will take place gradually over time, I think, once
PHP can be used with some expectation of stability on a non-prefork-MPM.
Note: I am not insinuating PHP is not
Just one week ago I made the switch to 2.0 from 1.3.
I have to admit, the reasons were not overly convincing from a technical
perspective. The reasons we changed were :
1. Some know nothing consultant chided us in a erport for not upgrading to
the latest apache release, therefore strictly a
Jeffrey Burgoyne
Chief Technology Architect
KCSI Keenuh Consulting Services Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Wayne S. Frazee wrote:
Paul A. Houle writes:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have seen much that would purport the worker
MPM to deliever gains in terms of capacity
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:31:19 +, Wayne S. Frazee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have seen much that would purport the
worker MPM to deliever gains in terms of capacity handling and
capacity-burst-handling as well as slimming down the resource footprint
of the
Jeffrey Burgoyne wrote:
Not trying to poo poo 2.0, I think it is great and required in the
marketplace. I always suspected adoption would be slow, especially from
the generic masses who use a stock out of the package installation. I've
seen nothing to convince me that will not be the case moving
Paul A. Houle writes:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:31:19 +, Wayne S. Frazee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have seen much that would purport the
worker MPM to deliever gains in terms of capacity handling and
capacity-burst-handling as well as slimming down the
Graham Leggett wrote:
Jeffrey Burgoyne wrote:
Not trying to poo poo 2.0, I think it is great and required in the
marketplace. I always suspected adoption would be slow, especially from
the generic masses who use a stock out of the package installation. I've
seen nothing to convince me that will
--On Monday, February 28, 2005 2:10 PM -0800 Paul Querna
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, it would be nice if everyone upgraded, but I hack on Apache 2 for
myself. Other people using it is just a bonus.
+1. Exactly my feelings as well. -- justin
--On Monday, February 28, 2005 10:08 PM + Wayne S. Frazee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Core directives to definitively control the amount of memory, et al, that
Apache 2 uses would be a DEFINITE functional upgrade-driver for some
businesses and applications to upgrade to 2.0. Apache has
I can go even one step further. 255 servers, 2.5 Gig of ram, huge config
(200 virtuals hosts, 1500 redirect rules, 2000 rewrite rules, 300 proxy
rules) and I never go into swap using prefork.
Mind you, no PHP, and that helps significantly.
I'll max out on CPU long before memory is all
I would think that a lot of this has to do with distributions and what's
supported out there. When major hosting companies change distros (which is not
a decision taken ligthly), they want to make sure _everything_ works for their
clients. Given that all major Linux and other distros ship Apache 2
--On Monday, February 28, 2005 6:24 PM -0500 Jeffrey Burgoyne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can go even one step further. 255 servers, 2.5 Gig of ram, huge config
(200 virtuals hosts, 1500 redirect rules, 2000 rewrite rules, 300 proxy
rules) and I never go into swap using prefork.
I believe 255
All true, but we are running a 100K (Canadian) blade center, and at 255
apaches per server and 10 blades, thats ~2500 concurrent users. You have
to have a pretty honking Sun box to manage that, certainly within the same
price range, and another 15K buys me 40% more power.
I have come to the
Jeffrey Burgoyne wrote:
All true, but we are running a 100K (Canadian) blade center, and at 255
apaches per server and 10 blades, thats ~2500 concurrent users. You have
to have a pretty honking Sun box to manage that, certainly within the same
price range, and another 15K buys me 40% more power.
At 09:17 AM 2/28/2005, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:39:06 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow :) That would be extraordinarily useful. Any hope the scheme
would be extensible, so a module such as cgi or rewrite could show
more specific Phases?
I'm leaning
At 03:09 PM 2/28/2005, Wayne S. Frazee wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. writes:
I'd argue the opposite, we aren't refining 2.x sufficiently for folks to
garner an advantage over using 1.3. It simply isn't more effective for them
to use 2.0 (having tried both.)
Further, I would submit that there
At 03:17 PM 2/28/2005, Paul A. Houle wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:09:55 +, Wayne S. Frazee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We've got production instances of Apache 2 running on Linux and Solaris,
all of which are running PHP on prefork.
Honestly, I don't see a huge advantage in going to
Hi all
Have somebody used xerces-c in an apache2 module?
My files contain XML data and I want to handle
them with an Apache2 module.
How is it possible?
---
Laszlo
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 03:17 PM 2/28/2005, Paul A. Houle wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:09:55 +, Wayne S. Frazee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We've got production instances of Apache 2 running on Linux and Solaris,
all of which are running PHP on prefork.
Honestly, I don't see a
Laszlo wrote:
Hi all
Have somebody used xerces-c in an apache2 module?
My files contain XML data and I want to handle
them with an Apache2 module.
How is it possible?
I only have personal experience on handling XML with libxml2 in apache
modules. The only module that I know of that used Xerces-c
31 matches
Mail list logo
