Am Dienstag, den 02.06.2009, 08:45 -0400 schrieb Sam Carleton:
My thought is create a
custom mod_proxy that will redirect some URL's from the public facing
Apache
to the internal IIS. Is this the correct approach or is there an
approach
that does not require actual development?
Probably
Hello,
(I realize that this question is not an exact fit for this mailing list)
I have a website that runs Apache 2.x. I want to loadtest this site.
I want to loadtest with as much as 50-100 requests per second.
Any pointers to tools/ online services ?
I am happy to pay for a tool that can do
Hello,
Sorin Manolache a écrit :
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 19:41, Elison Smith elison.sm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
(I realize that this question is not an exact fit for this mailing list)
I have a website that runs Apache 2.x. I want to loadtest this site.
I want to loadtest with as much as
On Jun 2, 2009, at 5:32 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Here's an oddity to consider;
FNM_PERIOD is part of the pattern match of both autoindex and ftp.
In the case of autoindex, we default to a pattern NULL so there is
no fnm pattern matching, and by default all files are autoindexed.
But
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Likely moot right now (r779989) but +1 to either removing
APR_FNM_PERIOD or changing pattern to NULL... the APR_FNM_PERIOD
fix is likely better since the * pattern was a holder, iirc, from
the old dir glob code.
Good point; these are separate fixes, both would make
Bill,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
reverted.
Thanks; something aught to be said under a Netware heading of README-FTP,
if you can whip up a paragraph or two?
hmmm, honestly spoken I dont know how to so.
The problem is that its not possible to do an easy in-tree build since
that would require
On Jun 3, 2009, at 9:48 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Likely moot right now (r779989) but +1 to either removing
APR_FNM_PERIOD or changing pattern to NULL... the APR_FNM_PERIOD
fix is likely better since the * pattern was a holder, iirc, from
the old dir glob code.
Some ramblings from playing with other servers, particularly varnish and
lighttpd. It would be interesting if we ditched the current configuration
system and just used lua. I know this has been said before, but I've been
doing a bit of playing with mod_lua and I think it it actually doable. We
Hi,
we support NetWare already from 1.3.x days, and I think it would make
sense to add 'NetWare' to the OS dropdown selector in BugZilla;
can perhaps someone with the needed karma add this please?
thanks, Günter.
Am Mittwoch, den 03.06.2009, 11:08 -0400 schrieb Akins, Brian:
It would be interesting if we ditched the current configuration
system and just used lua.
This does IMHO not address any of the problems users usually have and
that are mainly due to a lack of validation.
See
On 6/3/09 2:09 PM, Joachim Zobel jzo...@heute-morgen.de wrote:
This does IMHO not address any of the problems users usually have and
that are mainly due to a lack of validation.
First of all, I don't really care about normal users, to be honest. Admit
it, I'm not the only one. However, I do
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 19:41, Elison Smith elison.sm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
(I realize that this question is not an exact fit for this mailing list)
I have a website that runs Apache 2.x. I want to loadtest this site.
I want to loadtest with as much as 50-100 requests per second.
Any
I know I'm playing with fire now but...
XML based config could solve a few of the problems, XML can also be validated.
I have to admit lua would be more flexible but I think most server
admins have atleast come into contact with XML... while not
necessarily the case with lua.
of course a sort
On 6/3/09 2:45 PM, Jorge Schrauwen jorge.schrau...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to admit lua would be more flexible but I think most server
admins have atleast come into contact with XML... while not
necessarily the case with lua.
XML with conditionals. Please, make it stop...
I think we are
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Akins, Brian brian.ak...@turner.com wrote:
On 6/3/09 2:45 PM, Jorge Schrauwen jorge.schrau...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to admit lua would be more flexible but I think most server
admins have atleast come into contact with XML... while not
necessarily the case
On Jun 3, 2009, at 14:09, Joachim Zobel wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 03.06.2009, 11:08 -0400 schrieb Akins, Brian:
It would be interesting if we ditched the current configuration
system and just used lua.
This does IMHO not address any of the problems users usually have and
that are mainly due
On Jun 3, 2009, at 16:35, Bertrand Mansion wrote:
Lua can look like this :
DocumentRoot = /htdocs
ServerName = www.example.com
VirtualHosts = {
www.example.com = { DocumentRoot = /example.com/htdocs }
}
I'm sure that, given time, I can be persuaded that this is a good thing.
This
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
I know I'm playing with fire now but...
XML based config could solve a few of the problems, XML can also be validated.
I have to admit lua would be more flexible but I think most server
admins have atleast come into contact with XML... while not
Has anyone looked at VCL that varnish uses? That and some playing with
lighttpd's mod_magnet is what rekindled my interest:
http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/Introduction
http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/VCLExamples
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Niklas Edmundsson ni...@acc.umu.se wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
I know I'm playing with fire now but...
XML based config could solve a few of the problems, XML can also be
validated.
I have to admit lua would be more flexible but I
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Bertrand Mansion
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. Juni 2009 22:35
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Some ramblings on httpd config
Lua can look like this :
DocumentRoot = /htdocs
ServerName = www.example.com
VirtualHosts = {
www.example.com = {
2009/6/4 Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com:
2. I admit that some improvements are needed. How about an approach that
allows
to embed a macro / scripting language into the current configuration system
that allows you to do more advanced things if you need to.
(OK, yes
Akins, Brian wrote:
This does IMHO not address any of the problems users usually have and
that are mainly due to a lack of validation.
First of all, I don't really care about normal users, to be honest. Admit
it, I'm not the only one. However, I do know that we can't just break
everything
I would like to see the *output* of configuration be a struct (of
structs), and the actual config files are never looked at again (until
reload). At that point we don't need to care how it is built, and we
can try using lua, vcl, xml, jelly, groovy, windows ini files, or
plists :-)
I suspect
Brian McCallister wrote:
I would like to see the *output* of configuration be a struct (of
structs), and the actual config files are never looked at again (until
reload). At that point we don't need to care how it is built, and we
can try using lua, vcl, xml, jelly, groovy, windows ini files,
25 matches
Mail list logo
