> However, it should be straightforward to apply event mpm logic to the
> Windows MPM, more using completion contexts rather than poll. Any true
> completion-oriented async winnt mpm should be expected to outperform
> a poll based model, though YMMV.
IIRC there is a bugzilla patch for a complex l
On 2/22/2012 9:21 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
> Does the event MPM work on Windows? Or is Apache on Windows still limited to
> the winnt
> MPM? If so, doesn't this leave Apache on Windows /far /behind other
> platforms when it
> comes to threads required for a given load?
No / Yes / Compared to even
Does the event MPM work on Windows? Or is Apache on Windows still
limited to the winnt MPM? If so, doesn't this leave Apache on Windows
/far /behind other platforms when it comes to threads required for a
given load?
I guess it doesn't matter *that* much until the event MPM and mod_ssl
work
On 2/20/2012 8:04 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
> Ok, issues with all mod_ssl would be a big problem.
>
> If you needed to do DisableWin32AcceptEx, though, then something was already
> not quite right.
>
> What you mean by "mod_ssl on a port", though? You just mean running an HTTPS
> listener right?
Ok, issues with all mod_ssl would be a big problem.
If you needed to do DisableWin32AcceptEx, though, then something was
already not quite right.
What you mean by "mod_ssl on a port", though? You just mean running an
HTTPS listener right?
On 2/18/2012 12:43 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Platform specific ... documentation.
Should I be thinking about writing something for AIX here, as I get it
finished. Or is the README file going to be sufficient?
I am working on it, just don't expect it yesterday :)
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2012, at
On 18 Feb 2012, at 6:22 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> If this is generic to builds, I would appreciate the HOWTO (link) as well as
> I am investigating howto build httpd with ldap support on AIX.
> One path is with openldap, other is with with itdsclient (IBM Tivoli
> Directory Server) support.
You
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 17:22, Michael Felt wrote:
> If this is generic to builds, I would appreciate the HOWTO (link) as well as
this is very specific to Windows build. But if you want to see it. See
the second post in this topic[1]
> I am investigating howto build httpd with ldap support o
If this is generic to builds, I would appreciate the HOWTO (link) as well
as I am investigating howto build httpd with ldap support on AIX.
One path is with openldap, other is with with itdsclient (IBM Tivoli
Directory Server) support.
Other question, while asking - what is lua support? How disapp
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 13:56, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> I haven't done much building on Windows. Does anyone have a good
> link/suggestions to
> begin producing httpd builds with openssl/openldap included?
I'll send you a quick how to.
Cheers
Mario
The draft Announcement is in ./dev/dist/ as requested by
Bill, who also indicated he would update it to add in the
Windows bits...
On Feb 18, 2012, at 7:56 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> On 2/18/2012 12:43 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> It's quite certainly GA for windows.
>>
>> Unless you wish
On 2/18/2012 12:43 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> It's quite certainly GA for windows.
>
> Unless you wish to run mod_ssl on a port, and never successfully ran
> without the DisableWin32AcceptEx directive.
>
> For that small subset of users, there is more diagnostics required,
> and they won't en
On 2/17/2012 10:38 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 3:15 PM, Jess Holle wrote:
>> Does this mean the Windows-specific issues have been resolved?
>>
>> Or that this is a non-Windows GA?
>
> No, the Windows specific issue (PR 52476) has not been solved.
> So it's GA for all but Windows.
It's q
On 2/17/2012 3:15 PM, Jess Holle wrote:
Does this mean the Windows-specific issues have been resolved?
Or that this is a non-Windows GA?
No, the Windows specific issue (PR 52476) has not been solved.
So it's GA for all but Windows.
On 2/17/2012 9:13 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 20
Does this mean the Windows-specific issues have been resolved?
Or that this is a non-Windows GA?
On 2/17/2012 9:13 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
As such, I call the vote as PASSING and that httpd 2.4.1 will
be released as GA.
Congratulations, very
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> As such, I call the vote as PASSING and that httpd 2.4.1 will
> be released as GA.
Congratulations, very excited to soon have 2.4 in production!
Cheers
Tom
Congrats folks, way to go!
- Original Message -
> From: Jim Jagielski
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:42 AM
> Subject: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
>
> With the voting ending, I see the following result
With the voting ending, I see the following results:
+1 (binding): jorton, sf, kbrand, rjung, minfrin, jim
+1 (non-binding): Noel Butler, Steffen, mturk, Gregg Smith, Mario Bland,
+0:
-1:
As such, I call the vote as PASSING and that httpd 2.4.1 will
be released as GA.
I will move the tar
On 13 Feb 2012, at 3:56 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The 2.4.1 (candidate) tarballs are available for download and test:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.1 GA.
> NOTE: The -deps tarballs are included here *only* to make life
On 2/15/2012 1:03 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
On 2/13/2012 5:56 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The 2.4.1 (candidate) tarballs are available for download and test:
[X] +1: Good to go, with noted exception of remaining AcceptFilter issue
non-binding of course
Builds fine in IDE for me, tested on XP& Vist
On 13.02.2012 14:56, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The 2.4.1 (candidate) tarballs are available for download and test:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.1 GA.
NOTE: The -deps tarballs are included here *only* to make life
easier for the t
[X] +1: Good to go
Alomost all stuff is working well on Windows. It can't hurt to get
more user feedback now.
Introducing event mpm as no longer experimental on *nix system is also
very nice.
Mario
On 13.02.2012 14:56, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.1 GA.
> NOTE: The -deps tarballs are included here *only* to make life
> easier for the tester. They will not be, and are not, part
> of the official release.
>
> [X] +1: Good to go
> [ ] +0:
On 2/15/2012 3:16 PM, Steffen wrote:
> You are suggesting now that QoS and/and Spyware is the cause. None of that
> here, plain
> server.
>
> Repeat:
>
> I still think:
> Hardly believe that it is a driver problem, I guess more it is an ASF
> design issue, seen it nowhere else for all that years
[VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
On 2/15/2012 2:08 PM, Steffen wrote:
Ever contacted the owners of a network stack driver, like Microsoft, Intel
and Broadcom ?
No. I have never encountered the bug, myself. Of course, I disable
all MS QoS magic, and won't tolerate spyware living on the net
On 2/13/2012 5:56 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The 2.4.1 (candidate) tarballs are available for download and test:
[X] +1: Good to go, with noted exception of remaining AcceptFilter issue
non-binding of course
Builds fine in IDE for me, tested on XP& Vista x86.
Builds fine in IDE (without crypto)
On 2/15/2012 2:49 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
>
> How did "timing issues" not affect the old hack, and why not use the old
> "known to work"
> hack for at least AcceptFilter none, up until some better fix is found? If
> that fix is
> found and cannot be implemented till 2.next, then 2.next it is.
Th
On 2/15/2012 2:08 PM, Steffen wrote:
> Ever contacted the owners of a network stack driver, like Microsoft, Intel
> and Broadcom ?
No. I have never encountered the bug, myself. Of course, I disable
all MS QoS magic, and won't tolerate spyware living on the network
layer, but to each their own.
On 2/15/2012 10:00 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
When any one of these were incorrectly implemented by a network stack
driver, DisableWin32AcceptEx (and now AcceptFilter none) was necessary
to work around the broken driver. That feature has always been a gross
hack around what should "just wor
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
On 2/15/2012 11:39 AM, Steffen wrote:
Blaming (stack) drivers with set to data:
Bug shows when tested with server rated cards from Broadcom and Intel with
old and new certified drivers on clean 2008 R2 and SP1 and XP and with
consumer rated cards like
http
design issue, seen it nowhere else.
Steffen
-Original Message-
From: William A. Rowe Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 7:00 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Cc: Steffen
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
On 2/15/2012 11:39 AM, Steffen wrote:
Blaming (stack) drivers
On Monday 13 February 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The 2.4.1 (candidate) tarballs are available for download and test:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.1 GA.
> NOTE: The -deps tarballs are included here *only* to make life
>
On 2/15/2012 11:39 AM, Steffen wrote:
>
> Blaming (stack) drivers with set to data:
> Bug shows when tested with server rated cards from Broadcom and Intel with
> old and new certified drivers on clean 2008 R2 and SP1 and XP and with
> consumer rated cards like Realtek, and that on quite some diff
On 02/13/2012 02:56 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[X] +1: Good to go
Non binding of course.
Few windows glitches, but mostly build related.
Regards
--
^TM
: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
On 2/15/2012 8:12 AM, Steffen wrote:
Forget to be clear that SSL is still broken.
Expect that 2.4.1 is not got released as GA.
And to be more clear for any potential announcement;
1. AcceptFilter data [default] + mod_ssl works
(e
in if-statements,
why not: if Win then pick up the 2.2 code instead of new https none.
That timing is the cause looks to me a guess.
Steffen
-Original Message-
From: William A. Rowe Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 5:04 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release A
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:56:28AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The 2.4.1 (candidate) tarballs are available for download and test:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.1 GA.
> NOTE: The -deps tarballs are included here *only*
On 2/15/2012 8:12 AM, Steffen wrote:
> Forget to be clear that SSL is still broken.
> Expect that 2.4.1 is not got released as GA.
And to be more clear for any potential announcement;
1. AcceptFilter data [default] + mod_ssl works
(except when it doesn't - those users who previously had to u
PM Newsgroups: gmane.comp.apache.devel
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
Running Apache Lounge now with 2.4.1 Win32, so far so good.
Not using SSL, still have 2.2.22 with SSL in front as workaround.
Shall keep an eye on all, special the hanging "L&quo
On Monday 13 February 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The 2.4.1 (candidate) tarballs are available for download and test:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.1 GA.
> NOTE: The -deps tarballs are included here *only* to make life
>
12 2:56 PM Newsgroups: gmane.comp.apache.devel
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
The 2.4.1 (candidate) tarballs are available for download and test:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.1 GA.
NOTE: The -de
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 20:05 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/13/2012 7:07 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> > Builds fine on slackware, though, I did find it mildly amusing I had to
> > rebuild PHP.
> > Never had to do that before, not even with 2.4.0
>
> If you didn't have to rebuild mod_php5 be
On 2/13/2012 7:07 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> Builds fine on slackware, though, I did find it mildly amusing I had to
> rebuild PHP.
> Never had to do that before, not even with 2.4.0
If you didn't have to rebuild mod_php5 between httpd 2.2 and 2.4.0,
that was our (serious) error fixed in 2.4.1. Yo
Builds fine on slackware, though, I did find it mildly amusing I had to
rebuild PHP.
Never had to do that before, not even with 2.4.0
root@fox:/usr/local/src/httpd-2.4.1# /etc/rc.d/rc.httpd start
httpd: Syntax error on line 55 of /usr/local/apache/conf/httpd.conf:
Module "/usr/local/src/php-5.3.1
Known: my apr does not have ldap configured into it.
attached: the stderr and verbose output to tty,
new build/aix files
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> > On 13.02.2012 14:56, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> The 2.4.1 (cand
On Feb 13, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 13.02.2012 14:56, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> The 2.4.1 (candidate) tarballs are available for download and test:
>>
>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>
>> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.1 GA.
>> NOTE: The -dep
On 13.02.2012 14:56, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The 2.4.1 (candidate) tarballs are available for download and test:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.1 GA.
NOTE: The -deps tarballs are included here *only* to make life
easier for the t
The 2.4.1 (candidate) tarballs are available for download and test:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.1 GA.
NOTE: The -deps tarballs are included here *only* to make life
easier for the tester. They will not be, and are not, part
o
48 matches
Mail list logo