. In
addition, special features like serving different hosts under
different userids (perchild) can be provided.
This is all very well, but none of the special features work, and have
not worked for at least a year. This is the status of MPMs for UNIX at
the moment:
UNIX MPMs in Apache 2
for switching to Apache 2.
Really? The old MPM isn't *that* bad for most applications. Except on
those non-unix-like platforms where forking is stupidly inefficient.
UNIX MPMs that actually _work_ in Apache 2:
worker
prefork (old)
+ event (new - hopefully)
But the main thing MPMs have
Apologies to all if this sounds a little harsh, but I've been banging my
head against the perchild problem, and associated workarounds for a lack
of it, for so long it seems my entire Apache config life is taken up
with it.
I'd just like some kind of indication of whether it will ever get
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 01:16:10PM +, Nick Maynard wrote:
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...
The docs have been updated (all complete and in a red warning
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:56:47 +, Nick Maynard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
UNIX MPMs that actually _work_ in Apache 2:
worker
prefork (old)
Yeah, but what if you want to run PHP or mod_perl?
Sure, PHP or mod_perl ~might~ work for you if you're lucky and you don't
Paul A. Houle wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:56:47 +, Nick Maynard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
UNIX MPMs that actually _work_ in Apache 2:
worker
prefork (old)
Yeah, but what if you want to run PHP or mod_perl?
Sure, PHP or mod_perl ~might~ work
Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:11 GMT-5
I agree the documentation should be better. Also we should properly
document
the perchild-like options, since that is frequently-requested. In the
meantime, here's a list of things to look at if you want
perchild-like:
* Metux MPM
*
On Thursday 10 February 2005 14:10, Leif W wrote:
Hi, sorry if this is off-topic, but I just want to make sure I
understand this problem. Last month I read an email on another list
(suPHP) in which someone was upset about the security of Apache 2.0.x
with all file i/o and cgi being done by a
At 07:24 AM 2/10/2005, Paul A. Houle wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:56:47 +, Nick Maynard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
UNIX MPMs that actually _work_ in Apache 2:
worker
Yeah, but what if you want to run PHP or mod_perl?
Sure, PHP or mod_perl ~might~ work for you
From: Leif W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 3:10 PM
[...]
It's already a huge list of workaround and compatibility and portability for
an admin could be a nightmare. I do not know if there are even more security
wrappers needed for other language modules. Can
At 08:10 AM 2/10/2005, Leif W wrote:
I'm just trying to understand where the breakdown is. A feature that people
want, the lack of which spawns a sloppy slew of incompatible workarounds, but
no one around to respond and code it or fix what's available. The strength of
Apache was always *nix,
On Thursday 10 February 2005 11:56, Nick Maynard wrote:
OK - let's face it. Most people who seriously run Apache (1.3/2) run it
on a UNIX system. Often Linux. Some people have switched from Apache
1.3 to Apache 2 for a variety of reasons, but from my POV the new MPMs
were the primary
The docs have been updated (all complete and in a red warning box):
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mod/perchild.html
This module is not functional. Development of this module is not
complete and is not currently active. Do not use perchild unless you
are a programmer willing to help fix it.
Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:15 GMT-5
On Thursday 10 February 2005 14:10, Leif W wrote:
Hi, sorry if this is off-topic, but I just want to make sure I
understand this problem. Last month I read an email on another list
(suPHP) in which someone was upset about the security of
Nick Maynard wrote:
UNIX MPMs that actually _work_ in Apache 2:
worker
prefork (old)
event (experimental)
unclear if it works with mod_ssl with pipelining (not tested here yet)
Greg
Paul A. Houle wrote:
On Linux I've done some benchmarking and found that worker isn't
any faster than prefork at serving static pages. (Is it any different
on other platforms, such as Solaris?)
I'm sure we can tweak worker and event to make them faster, especially in 2.1+
with
Paul A. Houle wrote:
On Linux I've done some benchmarking and found that worker isn't
any faster than prefork at serving static pages. (Is it any different
on other platforms, such as Solaris?) In principle you might save RAM
by running prefork, but in this day and age you can fit 16
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:35 GMT-5
From: Leif W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 3:10 PM
things which might commonly be used in concert? Is there any
direction given
from the top of the Apache group in regards to what gets attention?
No, there
Leif W wrote:
My only concern is, if some people solved the puzzle externally, then
are there barriers which prevent them from getting the code committed?
The Metux web pages (official and unofficial) seem to be works in
progress. There is a quote which indicates that at least the guy
On 10 Feb 2005, at 16:45, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
If you know of such a programmer that can quickly identify and fix
race conditions, please send him my way. I will give him a job in a
second.
It kind of depends how well the races are hidden, doesn't it? :)
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
).
If there is positive encouragement, I'll commit to 2.1-dev, but I'd move the
check_dumpable() function to ap_check_dumpable() in mpm_common.c and call it
from all the Unix MPMs. The current patch is worker-specific.
If there is interest in the patch for 1.3, let me know and I'll post.
It is a bit
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:34:06AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
This checks for a couple of common conditions which prevent core dumps from
being taken and writes a NOTICE message to the error log at startup if the
condition is detected. BTW, the same code works with 1.3 with very minor
Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:34:06AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
This checks for a couple of common conditions which prevent core dumps from
being taken and writes a NOTICE message to the error log at startup if the
condition is detected. BTW, the same code works with 1.3 with
--On Wednesday, March 3, 2004 7:26 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can go either way on whether or not we attempt to raise the soft limit to
a *non-zero* hard limit when CoreDumpDirectory is specified.
Any other opinions?
Raising to the hard limit seems perfectly reasonable. --
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:34:06AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
This checks for a couple of common conditions which prevent core
dumps from being taken and writes a NOTICE message to the error log
at startup if the condition is detected. BTW, the same code
25 matches
Mail list logo
