Re: Broken link on Apache.org

//support.google.com/webmasters/answer/93633 The bottom of the Google > article points to two outdated version links on Apache.org at > https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/howto/htaccess.html and > https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/misc/rewriteguide.html Those pages > announce at the t

Re: New key for j...@apache.org

On 11/7/2010 1:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Resending w/ GPG sig. Need at least a few sigs before I can > T&R httpd 2.3.9-alpha! Also note we are signing your sig... it doesn't matter if individual key sigs are added before or after you sign packages :)

Re: New key for j...@apache.org

On 07.11.2010 20:36, Jim Jagielski wrote: Resending w/ GPG sig. Need at least a few sigs before I can T&R httpd 2.3.9-alpha! Done. Isn't it for the moment enough that you signed it with your already trusted key? Only when 1024 effectvely becomes breakable this wouldn't be valid any longer.

New key for j...@apache.org

Resending w/ GPG sig. Need at least a few sigs before I can T&R httpd 2.3.9-alpha! Seemed about time to finally upgrade my key to 4096... Just did it. Created and then signed by my old key. So please go ahead and sign this new one as well; of course, to be doubly-sure, feel free to grab me @ AC t

New key for j...@apache.org

Seemed about time to finally upgrade my key to 4096... Just did it. Created and then signed by my old key. So please go ahead and sign this new one as well; of course, to be doubly-sure, feel free to grab me @ AC to verify. pub 4096R/791485A8 2010-11-04 Key fingerprint = A93D 62EC C3C8 EA

Re: 2.3 upgrade on apache.org

On Jul 18, 2010, at 12:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 7/18/2010 12:58 PM, Paul Querna wrote: >> >> We have now disabled Sendfile on apache.org, and the load average >> dropped from ~80 to 0.35. > > Wow. > > Is it unreasonable for us to change the API t

Re: 2.3 upgrade on apache.org

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 7/18/2010 12:58 PM, Paul Querna wrote: >> >> We have now disabled Sendfile on apache.org, and the load average >> dropped from ~80 to 0.35. > > Wow. > > Is it unreasonable for us to change the API t

Re: 2.3 upgrade on apache.org

On Jul 18, 2010, at 3:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 7/18/2010 12:58 PM, Paul Querna wrote: >> >> We have now disabled Sendfile on apache.org, and the load average >> dropped from ~80 to 0.35. > > Wow. > > Is it unreasonable for us to change the API t

Re: 2.3 upgrade on apache.org

On Monday, July 19, 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 7/18/2010 12:58 PM, Paul Querna wrote: >> >> We have now disabled Sendfile on apache.org, and the load average >> dropped from ~80 to 0.35. > > Wow. > > Is it unreasonable for us to change the API to disab

Re: 2.3 upgrade on apache.org

On 7/18/2010 2:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 7/18/2010 12:58 PM, Paul Querna wrote: We have now disabled Sendfile on apache.org, and the load average dropped from ~80 to 0.35. Wow. Is it unreasonable for us to change the API to disable sendfile as the default from 2.3-alphas

Re: 2.3 upgrade on apache.org

On 7/18/2010 12:58 PM, Paul Querna wrote: > > We have now disabled Sendfile on apache.org, and the load average > dropped from ~80 to 0.35. Wow. Is it unreasonable for us to change the API to disable sendfile as the default from 2.3-alphas forward? The feature is loaded with simply

Re: 2.3 upgrade on apache.org

ache.org/msg04928.html> I've started tuning up the FreeBSD sysctls for network buffers etc, but it didn't seem to have a significant effect. We have now disabled Sendfile on apache.org, and the load average dropped from ~80 to 0.35. On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Paul Querna wrote

2.3 upgrade on apache.org

www.apache.org is now running trunk @ r965127, using the Event MPM on FreeBSD 8.1, on a new x86 box. Previously it was running on Solaris 10, with 2.2.x on sparc t2000s. I have also enabled OCSP stapling on the SSL side: Anyways, I've made a list of the 2.3-ish issues

ajax (most of *.apache.org) now running httpd 2.0.54 pre-release

As the subject says... Let me know if you see any problems. Joshua.

httpd-2.0.50 is in production on apache.org

...since 29-Jun-2004 11:10:49 PDT. It looks good to me. If you disagree, please let us know. Greg

Re: apache.org getting DoS'd? maxclients turned down

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Pier Fumagalli wrote: > > > I'm still seeing erratic ssh response. Is there some way to monitor network > > > bandwidth utilization in real time? I wonder if we are maxing out our NICs > > > this morning? That would make the big downloads take longer, using up more

Re: apache.org getting DoS'd? maxclients turned down

On 21/10/02 21:14, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I don't feel brave enough to redirect all of that at once without > knowing what's going on in the xml or jarkarta projects, and without being > able to monitor nagoya very well. Greg, if you want I can open up you an accou

Re: apache.org getting DoS'd? maxclients turned down

Pier Fumagalli wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> Brian Behlendorf wrote: > >>> > >>> The load average on apache.org spiked into the 300's a couple times this > >>> weekend. > > > >>> I bet there'

RE: 2.0.35 related: Website tweak, upgrade apache.org servers

At 06:18 AM 4/6/2002, you wrote: > > From: Mladen Turk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 06 April 2002 13:53 > > > What bothers me is the statement the "Win32 port of Apache is not as stable > > as the UNIX version". > >This is not in the 2.0 part of the page. This only goes for 1.3. In the >

RE: 2.0.35 related: Website tweak, upgrade apache.org servers

On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Mladen Turk wrote: > > http://httpd.apache.org still shows: > > > > "Apache 1.3.24 is the best version of Apache currently available; > > everyone running 1.2.X servers or earlier are strongly urged to > > upgrade to 1.3, as there will not be any further 1.2.X releases. > >

RE: 2.0.35 related: Website tweak, upgrade apache.org servers

> From: Mladen Turk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 06 April 2002 13:53 > > http://httpd.apache.org still shows: > > > > "Apache 1.3.24 is the best version of Apache currently available; > > everyone running 1.2.X servers or earlier are strongly urged to > > upgrade to 1.3, as there will not

RE: 2.0.35 related: Website tweak, upgrade apache.org servers

> -Original Message- > From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 1:23 PM > > http://httpd.apache.org still shows: > > "Apache 1.3.24 is the best version of Apache currently available; > everyone running 1.2.X servers or earlier are strongly urged t

2.0.35 related: Website tweak, upgrade apache.org servers

table as the UNIX version." We probably want to demote 1.3 a bit. And, IMHO, we should upgrade the apache.org servers (at least icarus deserves an upgrade) to 2.0.35. Sander

apache.org

It seems to be down... just went there to check some stuff out on jakarta... hmm, p. -- Research causes cancer in rats. 110461387 http://gpg.md5.ca http://perlpimp.com

FW: [donotreply@Apache.Org: Re: OpenBSD + Apache as heavy loaded webserver and the cgi problem]

Months-old misfiled mail.. not acked. - Forwarded message from Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: OpenBSD + Apache as heavy loaded webserver and the cgi problem] Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 04:2

[lists-openbsd@bsws.de: [donotreply@Apache.Org: Re: OpenBSD + Apache as heavy loaded webserver and the cgi problem]]

(Working through antique misfiled mail) Not acked. - Forwarded message from Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: OpenBSD + Apache as heavy loaded webserver and the cgi problem] Date: Mon, 15