[Let's continue the discussion privately from now on as it's becoming
less relevant for the httpd project...]
On 2/2/07, Arnold Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
You do not need a secret, but the users who may changed are specified.
In our setup user 'www-data', which has no privileges
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
I just got back from Nicolas's country where my 'net access was a bit
spotty, but everything else was great (but expensive) as always... :-)
core +1 from me
as soon as i get over the jetlag and catch up with things, i'll do the
rest (we have all the core
On 2/2/07, Brian Akins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a need to write a generic way to integrate apr_memcache into httpd.
Basically, I have several otehr modules taht use memcached as backend and want
to combine the boring stuff into a central place, ie configuration, stats,
etc. We talked a
Last Nov 22 I asked a question about writable shared memory,
everything's working now so thanks!
Locking the shared memory is turning out to be quite costly. I have
many shared-memory readers and only a few writers so using a rwlock
seems appropriate but APR provides only apr_thread_rwlock
Would the following change in mod_cache.h require a major bump or would a minor
bump be enough?
Index: mod_cache.h
===
--- mod_cache.h (Revision 503593)
+++ mod_cache.h (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -314,7 +314,7 @@
Hi Apache Gurus,
I am seeing the following issue when I sent a graceful restart signal to
httpd [run with proxy enabled]
Processes on receiving SIGUSR1 seems to send a GET / HTTP/1.0 to the httpd
itself.
This seems to be a dummy request that each process is trying to send
127.0.0.1
On Feb 5, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Devi Krishna wrote:
Wondering if this is a known issue, and if there is any solution
for it.
Not having written the code, I think the Pipe Of Death (POD) is a
mechanism for the server to draw the attention of workers that are
sitting in accept(). Receiving
Hi Sander
Thanks for the quick response ! However, I am surprised that when it
returns from accept, why would accept return a valid socket id and not -1 ?
Thanks Regards
Devi
On 2/5/07, Sander Temme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 5, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Devi Krishna wrote:
Wondering if
interesting idea !!!
i use memcache (with libmemcache) in my from auth module
(http://authmemcookie.sourceforge.net/)!
my next step is to try to use apr_memcache in place of libmemcache... (by my
primary goal is to make posible to use my module on old 2.0 apache version that
user older
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 09:26:25PM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Would the following change in mod_cache.h require a major bump or would a
minor bump be enough?
...
Or do we need no bump at all as we currently do not install
mod_cache.h in the includes directory and thus all things defined in
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Would the following change in mod_cache.h require a major bump or would a
minor bump be enough?
APR_DECLARE_OPTIONAL_FN(apr_status_t,
ap_cache_generate_key,
-(request_rec *r, apr_pool_t*p, char**key ));
+
Hello,
I'm currently having issues with flood that I can't currently replicate
with any of my other load / stress testing tools.
I'm running a version of flood checked out of the subversion repository
from mid January (1/16/07) on an Unbutu 6.10
server.
I am currently trying to automate a load
This is similar to the route I was pondering. But I believe it would add a
greater degree of security to have the kernel module read a config file in the
/etc directory which limits which uid's may switch to precisely which uid's.
That way the parent process can fork a child and setuid for
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:15:23 +0100, Arnold Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
We run a shared hosting company as well and taken upon the route to
patch the linux kernel to allow switching of user of the current
process. An apache module allows you to switch the process based on the
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
As 3rd parties might want to use the provider interface to provide their own
storage
providers it might be worth discussing if we *should* make this a public API
and should
install it via make install.
Someone probably has ;-) That said, +1 for this in trunk/httpd
On 2/5/07, John Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm currently having issues with flood that I can't currently replicate
with any of my other load / stress testing tools.
I'm running a version of flood checked out of the subversion repository
from mid January (1/16/07) on an Unbutu 6.10
On 02/06/2007 04:16 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
As 3rd parties might want to use the provider interface to provide their own
storage
providers it might be worth discussing if we *should* make this a public API
and should
install it via make install.
Someone
17 matches
Mail list logo
