Greetings,
From what I'm seeing in ab.c sources, ab's structure doesn't really
make it trivial to add support for following redirects (namely HTTP
302) and only account for the 200 after it. Has anyone missed this so
much to the point of patching ab, and is it available? Would anyone
poin
On Jul 7, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
It breaks the 1:1: connection mapping to thread (or process) model
which is critical to low memory footprint, with thousands of
connections, maybe I'm just insane, but all of the servers taking
market share, like lighttpd,
Dan Poirier wrote:
I've added a patch to bug 16057 to replace the use of shared memory with
socache. I was hoping the changes would be less pervasive, but the
shared memory assumption showed up in a lot of places.
Comments on the proposed changes would be more than welcome.
Can't wait to s
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> In case you haven't already found it, ensure you have a read of:
>
>
> http://www.fmc-modeling.org/category/projects/apache/amp/4_3Multitasking_server.html
>
>
>
> It may not address the specific question, but certainly will give yo
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> In case you haven't already found it, ensure you have a read of:
>
>
> http://www.fmc-modeling.org/category/projects/apache/amp/4_3Multitasking_server.html
>
>
>
> It may not address the specific question, but certainly will give yo
Joe Orton writes:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:46:39AM -0400, Dan Poirier wrote:
>> I was looking at mod_auth_digest and bug 16057. Currently the shared
>> memory code in that module is disabled, and it turns out that has
>> effects throughout the module, such as disabling all client tracking,
>
Hi,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
> +1 for trunk, no need for httpd-2.2 - we will be breaking ABI and API at 2.0
> and won't expect httpd 2.2 to compile against it without significant change.
I would prefer to stay with the '#ifdef APR_VERSION < 2' because they
cost us nothing, and at least at the
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:48:29AM -0400, Dan Poirier wrote:
> So if the content-length was parsed correctly, but the vulnerability
> related to additional data wasn't fixed, this test would still pass?
> (Since then we're not sending any more data than expected?)
That is phrased almost as if ther
