+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
On 9/21/08 2:17 AM, Bing Swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But an optimal
network i/o model needs a layer that maps a *request* to a thread, so that a
worker thread (or process) will not have to be tied up entirely with a
single connection during the whole life time of the connection. Instead, a
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 9/21/08 2:17 AM, Bing Swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But an optimal
network i/o model needs a layer that maps a *request* to a thread, so that a
worker thread (or process) will not have to be tied up entirely with a
single connection during the whole life time of
Akins, Brian wrote:
I'm all for making httpd faster, scale better, etc. I just don't want to be
extremely disappointed if we rewrite it all and gain nothing but a more
complicated model. If we get great gains, wonderful, but I'd like to see
some actually numbers before we all decided to
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 9/21/08 2:17 AM, Bing Swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But an optimal
network i/o model needs a layer that maps a *request* to a thread, so that a
worker thread (or process) will not have to be tied up entirely with a
single connection during the whole life time of the
On Sep 22, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
No, in pure requests/second, there will not be a significant
difference.
Today, a properly tuned apache httpd, with enough RAM, can keep up
with the 'fastest' web servers of the day, like lighttpd. Most of
the benchmarks where we do
I hate to re-open this can of worms, but...
Unless I'm missing something, in trunk right now, uncommenting includes
for the examples like extra/httpd-manual.conf does not result in being
able to serve the documentation pages.
In the main config file:
Directory /
Require all denied
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Ohad Lutzky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*SNIP* patch *SNIP*
The patch seems to work well, thanks! :)
Cool - committed in r697920. Thanks. -- justin
Sounds good, glad I was able to help. I'll keep an eye on this in a
future httpd release.
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09/20/2008 12:21 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On 19 Sep 2008, at 23:08, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 09/19/2008 11:24 PM, Adam
I ran make test
Safe to ignore? Bugs? Something mis-configured?
testflock: \ld.so.1: tryread: fatal: libgcc_s.so.1: open failed: No such file
or directory -ld.so.1: tryread: fatal: libgcc_s.so.1: open failed: No such file
or directory
FAILED 2 of 3
testoc: -ld.so.1: occhild: fatal:
Richard Hubbell wrote:
I ran make test
Safe to ignore? Bugs? Something mis-configured?
testflock: \ld.so.1: tryread: fatal: libgcc_s.so.1: open failed: No such file
or directory -ld.so.1: tryread: fatal: libgcc_s.so.1: open failed: No such file
or directory
FAILED 2 of 3
testoc: -ld.so.1:
--- On Mon, 9/22/08, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: make test failures on solaris5.10
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Monday, September 22, 2008, 3:46 PM
Richard Hubbell wrote:
I ran make test
Safe to ignore? Bugs? Something
12 matches
Mail list logo
