On 04/13/2010 10:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Apr 13, 2010, at 4:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Apr 8, 2010, at 3:58 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
On 04/07/2010 03:40 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Original Message-
From: jean-frederic clere [mailto:jfcl...@gmail.com]
-Original Message-
From: Ryujiro Shibuya
Sent: Mittwoch, 14. April 2010 03:35
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Age calculation in mod_cache.
Hello,
A minor issue in the age calculation in mod_cache
[ap_cache_current_age() in
cache_util.c] is found.
In some unusual
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Steven B ste...@teamholistic.com wrote:
Somehow there was a decision made that changed max PHP processes from
per-user to per-vhost between the old mod_fcgid and the newer 2.3.5 version.
Maybe this is the commit? (before mod_fcgid development moved here
but
On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:38 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
On 04/13/2010 10:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Apr 13, 2010, at 4:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Apr 8, 2010, at 3:58 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
On 04/07/2010 03:40 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Original
On 04/14/2010 05:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:38 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
On 04/13/2010 10:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Apr 13, 2010, at 4:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Apr 8, 2010, at 3:58 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
On 04/07/2010 03:40 PM, Plüm,
On Apr 14, 2010, at 1:10 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
You should also likely pass a int * (or something) to handle
the requirement to also know total_factor outside of that
call... Of course, lbstatus is something that outside code
shouldn't really know about, but that's a whole 'nother
On 04/14/2010 07:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Apr 14, 2010, at 1:10 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
You should also likely pass a int * (or something) to handle
the requirement to also know total_factor outside of that
call... Of course, lbstatus is something that outside code
shouldn't
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Darren Garvey darren.gar...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2010 13:39, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Darren Garvey darren.gar...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 31 March 2010 15:49, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed,
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Darren Garvey darren.gar...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2010 13:39, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Darren Garvey darren.gar...@gmail.com
wrote:
On
When slowloris first hit the headlines, it generated bad press
for us: we offered no defence beyond raising your resource limits.
I hacked up mod_noloris as a stopgap solution, but it's
not really recommended for anything beyond ticking a box
labelled defence against slowloris-type attacks.
Since
I haven't used it, but if mod_reqtimeout makes it entirely redundant,
my vote would be to keep it in trunk only. People interested in how
the attack/defence work can look at it, and there might be those who
for some reason don't want mod_reqtimeout.
--
Sent from my toaster.
11 matches
Mail list logo
