Re: [users@httpd] problems benchmarking php-fpm/proxy_fcgi with h2load

2018-02-04 2:27 GMT+01:00 Yann Ylavic : > > > I'm not sure playing with 'max' is the the right thing to do in this > case, it makes few sense to configure max_children on fpm lower than > httpd's MaxRequestWorkers, they probably should be the same in the > first place. > Limits should indeed be imp

Re: New ServerUID directive

> Am 03.02.2018 um 02:05 schrieb Yann Ylavic : > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> But we already have a unique ID in the form of >> the actual server struct itself, which contains >> all the data required to make a vhost "unique" > > Sure, my patch or any other way to

The Case for Managed Domains

(Apart from my direct comments in my previous reply in the ServerUID discussion, I offer a little essay about my motivation in this topic for the interested, as it is related to the mod_md design I did. It is long. Please feel free to ignore it.) When thinking about adding ACME support to Apa

Re: The Case for Managed Domains

There is already Basic Management eXtensions for Apache : mod_bmx is handling vhosts. https://github.com/hyperic/mod_bmx/ Using it on windows with mrtg and mod_watch to create nice graphs per vhost. An issue is that it is not collecting incoming traffic, Bill(William Rowe) is looking for a f

Re: New ServerUID directive

> On Feb 4, 2018, at 5:49 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: > > > Initially, ServerUID sounded like a tweak, but now we are talking > about the identity of a server_rec across reloads and how that > can be useful. > But does it need to be a user Directive? I still say it is not needed whether or

Re: New ServerUID directive

> On Feb 2, 2018, at 8:05 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > That's a new directive too, very specialized (though it's your point). > Wouldn't it end up being declined to other modules one day or the other? > But mainly, rather than ignoring config changes, I think mod_proxy_lb > should ignore non-chan

Re: The Case for Managed Domains

+1 > On Feb 4, 2018, at 7:35 AM, Steffen wrote: > > There is already Basic Management eXtensions for Apache : mod_bmx is handling > vhosts. > > https://github.com/hyperic/mod_bmx/ > > Using it on windows with mrtg and mod_watch to create nice graphs per

Re: New ServerUID directive

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > >> On Feb 2, 2018, at 8:05 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >> That's a new directive too, very specialized (though it's your point). >> Wouldn't it end up being declined to other modules one day or the other? >> But mainly, rather than ignoring c

Re: The Case for Managed Domains

I am a bit ignorant about mod_bmx so I'd need to ask some follow up questions: how is it going to solve Stefan's points? As a far as I can see it is a very nice architecture to query metrics and process them via plugins, so I'd be super glad to see it integrated to power up our status page but I do

Re: The Case for Managed Domains

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Luca Toscano wrote: > I am a bit ignorant about mod_bmx so I'd need to ask some follow up > questions: how is it going to solve Stefan's points? As a far as I can see > it is a very nice architecture to query metrics and process them via > plugins, so I'd be super g

Re: The Case for Managed Domains

I was triggered by IO stats he was mentioned: For example,settings and locations for access logging would be nice to have. IO Stats as well. > Op 5 feb. 2018 om 02:47 heeft Eric Covener het volgende > geschreven: > >> On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Luca Toscano wrote: >> I am a bit ignorant