Hi Yann,
Yes, without SO_REUSEPORT, child only accepts connections from a single
listening socket only. In order to address the situation of in-balanced traffic
among different sockets/listen statements, the patch makes each bucket does its
own idler server maintenance. For example, if we have
Hi Bill,
I was just worried about forking mpm_prefork into mpm_prefork_buckets, and
so on with worker/event/..., most of the code would have been the same.
But I can't disagree with you, factorizing the existing MPMs shared codes
(it seems there are quite some) and future ones into a common inter
Yann,
what you might wish to consider is that each individual MPM may be
compiled alongside the others. If you do a feature select, you are
left with one of the other.
If it is designed to cohabitate, then it may share sources under the
os/ branch, but can still exist as a separate loadable MPM.
I'm not sure (yet) a new MPM is needed, or rather, multiple new MPMs are
needed.
The "bucketized" listeners is applyable to all (*nix only?) MPMs, that
would lead to as much forks...
Couldn't new directives be created instead (ServerBucketsNum, Listen
, ...), defaulting to the current behaviour?
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Lu, Yingqi wrote:
> 1. If I understand correctly (please correct me if not), do you suggest
> duplicating the listen socks inside the child process with SO_REUSEPROT
> enabled? Yes, I agree this would be a cleaner implementation and I actually
> tried that before.
++1.
On Mar 6, 2014, at 3:15 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: William A. Rowe Jr. [mailto:wmr...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 06:58
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH ASF bugzilla# 55897]prefork_mpm patch with
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Lu, Yingqi wrote:
>
>
> 1. If I understand correctly (please correct me if not), do you suggest
> duplicating the listen socks inside the child process with SO_REUSEPROT
> enabled? Yes, I agree this would be a cleaner implementation and I actually
> tried that befo
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:17 AM, InuSasha wrote:
> i have actual an problem with my proxy-timeout configuration.
> (Apache 2.2.26, but 2.4 seems to have the same problem).
Try us...@httpd.apache.org
Hi,
I have a situation where I have to install httpd of v 2.X in a centos linux
machine where already older version of httpd is running there. For some
reasons, I couldn't make use of single upgraded httpd.
I have to push this install in production servers via rpm and yum. So I
have compiled rpm
Hi,
i have actual an problem with my proxy-timeout configuration.
(Apache 2.2.26, but 2.4 seems to have the same problem).
In my apache configuration we have defined a global ProxyTimeout to 30
seconds.
But one of our JBoss-backends have some slow pages, and we want to raise
the timeout to 2 m
On 06 Mar 2014, at 10:15 AM, "Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group"
wrote:
> +1 to a new MPM on trunk. This gives it more time to settle and to stabilize
> without disrupting current stuff. And if it is fast and stable it will
> certainly
> cause the 'older' MPM to drop in userbase :-).
> IMHO this wo
> -Original Message-
> From: William A. Rowe Jr. [mailto:wmr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 06:58
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH ASF bugzilla# 55897]prefork_mpm patch with
> SO_REUSEPORT support
>
>
> If you want to truly re-architect the MPM, by all me
12 matches
Mail list logo
