Graham Leggett wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ideally, it would be nice if we had better insight on the
actual health of the backends than a simple "do they respond
to OPTIONS * and how long does it take", but that's pretty
much all we can do unless go full-on multicasting of info
ala mod_backhand
On Feb 13, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Kaspar Brand wrote:
While I was testing revocation checking for client certs in an SNI
configuration (Dirk, many thanks for make_sni.sh, btw!), I came
across a
flaw in the current implementation when CRL information - i.e.
Thank YOU (me feel silly now - as I s
On 2/13/08 12:50 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That was the other option as well... some sort of hearbeat
> loop which updates worker status. Still, we get into the issue
> with how much of "how proxy connects to and communicates with
> the backend" to honor or work around.
An e
On 2/13/08 1:09 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And again, we're basically doubling traffic and adding
> overheard (more overhead than AJP's cping/cpong) at which
> point I go back into wondering whether this sort of
> implementation makes sense at all...
So is the main issue we
On 2/13/08 2:10 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The latter is relatively easy to do with the current
> impl... Maybe I'll drop the ping idea and work on this ;)
+1 ;)
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
On Feb 12, 2008, at 4:31 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
I was recently hacking on a script to create ca-bundle.crt:
http://curl.haxx.se/lxr/source/lib/mk-ca-bundle.pl
after I had finished my script I found that Joe already hacked a
very similar script 3 years ago, a
On 2/13/08 6:01 PM, "Graham Leggett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there anything stopping us going the multicasting route, say by
> adding a hook or hooks of some kind to proxy that keeps track of known
> server states?
Multicasting doesn't work well for us, for example, because servers are
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Akins, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Februar 2008 12:37
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: ping for http in mod_proxy
>
> On 2/13/08 1:09 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > And again, we're basic
On 2/14/08 6:44 AM, "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 1. We currently have no mechanism in place that "simulates" these kind of
>failures we experience ourselves with the backend for the client. Returning
>a 500 or 503 does not cause the client to repeat the request. I
On 12/02/2008, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if you have substituted content that you think will be re-substituted
> by another rule, then you should flatten. If they are one-shots, or
> self contained, or in "no way" could result in overlaps, then flattening
> isn't required. :
Nick Kew wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:27:26 -0500
Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+This helps in various situations where a firewall between
Apache and
+the backend server (irregardless of protocol) tends to silently
irregardless??? Regardless?
or irrespective? (which is
On Feb 14, 2008, at 07:53, Vincent Bray wrote:
On 12/02/2008, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So if you have substituted content that you think will be re-
substituted
by another rule, then you should flatten. If they are one-shots, or
self contained, or in "no way" could result i
On Feb 13, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ideally, it would be nice if we had better insight on the
actual health of the backends than a simple "do they respond
to OPTIONS * and how long does it take", but that's pretty
much all we can do unless go full-on multic
On Feb 14, 2008, at 6:33 AM, Akins, Brian wrote:
On 2/13/08 12:50 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That was the other option as well... some sort of hearbeat
loop which updates worker status. Still, we get into the issue
with how much of "how proxy connects to and communicates wi
On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Vincent Bray wrote:
On 12/02/2008, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So if you have substituted content that you think will be re-
substituted
by another rule, then you should flatten. If they are one-shots, or
self contained, or in "no way" could result in
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Vincent Bray wrote:
>
> > On 12/02/2008, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> So if you have substituted content that you think will be re-
> >> substituted
> >> by another rul
On Feb 14, 2008, at 08:50, Eric Covener wrote:
Anyone else +1 for flatten-as-default and providing an option such as:
'q'uick: Substitute more efficiently, but further substitutions will
not be able match across the boundaries of this substitutions
replacement string.
Yes in concept. Don't
On Feb 14, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Vincent Bray wrote:
On 12/02/2008, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So if you have substituted content that you think will be re
Eric Covener wrote:
Anyone else +1 for flatten-as-default and providing an option such as:
'q'uick: Substitute more efficiently, but further substitutions will
not be able match across the boundaries of this substitutions
replacement string.
+1, anything requiring this depth-of-understanding
On Feb 14, 2008, at 9:00 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
On Feb 14, 2008, at 08:50, Eric Covener wrote:
Anyone else +1 for flatten-as-default and providing an option such
as:
'q'uick: Substitute more efficiently, but further substitutions will
not be able match across the boundaries of this subst
On Feb 14, 2008, at 09:07, Jim Jagielski wrote:
It's not even just that "there is a second substitution" but rather
that the pattern/regex being looked for could possibly be the
result of a previous substition.
If you have to subs like
s/foo/bar/
s/plum/apple/
there is no way one c
On Feb 14, 2008, at 9:06 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Eric Covener wrote:
Anyone else +1 for flatten-as-default and providing an option such
as:
'q'uick: Substitute more efficiently, but further substitutions will
not be able match across the boundaries of this substitutions
replacement s
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Eric Covener wrote:
Anyone else +1 for flatten-as-default and providing an option such as:
'q'uick: Substitute more efficiently, but further substitutions will
not be able match across the boundaries of this substitutions
replacement string.
+1, anything requiring
This is a good one: Should mod_file_cache.c honor the
value of EnableSendfile ? :)
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Feb 14, 2008, at 9:06 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Eric Covener wrote:
>>> Anyone else +1 for flatten-as-default and providing an option such as:
>>> 'q'uick: Substitute more efficiently, but further substitutions will
>>> not be able match across the boundarie
On Feb 14, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
On Feb 14, 2008, at 09:07, Jim Jagielski wrote:
It's not even just that "there is a second substitution" but rather
that the pattern/regex being looked for could possibly be the
result of a previous substition.
If you have to subs like
s/
In the words of the Blue Raja, "What the fork"
Done in r627764 :)
Jim Jagielski wrote:
This is a good one: Should mod_file_cache.c honor the
value of EnableSendfile ? :)
Sounds reasonable.
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Akins, Brian wrote:
Someone could write a spread based module for origin status (or mysql, or
memcache, or...) if the interface was well defined and "clean." The way
balancer is so hooked into proxy makes it hard to write a replacement
without hacking "core" proxy. In proxy it could be as simp
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Jim Jagielski
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Februar 2008 15:12
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: mod_substitute docs
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2008, at 9:06 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Eric Covener wrote:
> >> Anyone else +1 for flatten-as-de
On 2/14/08 9:54 AM, "Graham Leggett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In theory, you should be able to stack the providers, so that a balancer
> module could return the list of servers to try in the right order, and
> then another module could further reduce that list down to servers that
> are actual
Right now, both of these are defined as
APR_IMPLEMENT_EXTERNAL_HOOK_RUN_FIRST and the ones we use
are at APR_HOOK_FIRST. They also always return OK (unless
an error) so this means that we can never add additional
hooks here and have them run (don't talk to me about
REALLY_FIRST :) ).
Anyway, cons
On 02/14/2008 11:24 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: dirkx
Date: Thu Feb 14 02:24:04 2008
New Revision: 627699
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=627699&view=rev
Log:
Kasper Brand came across a flaw in the current implementation when CRL
information - i.e. SSLCARevocationFile/SSLCARev
On 02/14/2008 01:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Thu Feb 14 04:55:57 2008
New Revision: 627728
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=627728&view=rev
Log:
Add in mod_jk's disablereuse analog for mod_proxy.
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES
httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/man
I don't know if there is something wrong with my code or if there is
some bug on ap_get_brigade function. Any help will be very appreciate!
ap_get_brigade is designed to be used in input filters.
If you want read request data in your content handler,
you must use ap_should_client_block and ap_
On Feb 14, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 02/14/2008 11:24 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: dirkx
Date: Thu Feb 14 02:24:04 2008
New Revision: 627699
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=627699&view=rev
Log:
Kasper Brand came across a flaw in the current implementation when
On 02/14/2008 09:46 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On Feb 14, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
server on this IP/port pair. IMHO SNI in SSL should be handled the
same way as usual
name based virtual hosts in the HTTP case. This may mean that we need
to add another
server_rec fie
Folks
Here's that flood patch again. People have actually asked for this so I
hope it will be possible to consider it. The total size of the changes
is small so it won't be a lot of work.
Here's what it does.
You specify one or more items with two elements in your config file.
The two elements
Akins, Brian wrote:
Yeah that was my thought. I guess you pass around the array of servers.
Just remove (or mark as N/A) from the list and/or reorder it. At the end,
core proxy picks whatever is in index 0 (possibly walking the list in case
of connection error or something).
Essentially that
39 matches
Mail list logo
