ocket would mean that all traffic
would go through this frontend process (and thus the UID owning it).
This would preclude our traffic measures from having any meaning. Does
anyone have any thoughts on this?
--
Nick Maynard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
omeone who understands these things comment on whether there
is any commitment to fix perchild, or any of the other UNIX Apache 2
MPMs at some point? Failing that, maybe the documentation for Apache 2
could be updated to avoid giving people the wrong impression from the
outset.
Thanks,
Nick Maynard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ely, I'm merely
putting forward a consideration from my POV.
PS. Not subscribed to the mailing list and checking this via gmane.
So, copying replies to me is a good idea if you want a response!
Thanks,
Nick Maynard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
l ever get fixed.
If not, you/we really should tell everyone, and let it die its natural
death. Maybe I've missed you doing this, but your docs do say "work is
ongoing" on perchild...
Thanks,
Nick Maynard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Hello Mads,
That's fantastic. Could the docs at
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mpm.html be updated to reflect this too?
Thanks,
Nick Maynard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rocess agnostic?
This way two MPMs, one process-based and one thread-based, could be
created from the same codebase, allowing admins to select the one that's
best for their setup. Forgive me if I've hit on a technical
impossibility - my coding skills have sadly deteriorated since univer
