* Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Though since it really affects any logging it probably should be called
> UNESCAPED_LOGGING or similar. And probably a similar patch applied to 1.3.
It only affects error logging. What do you mean by any logging?
I can live with it in general (wouldn't
On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 03:48, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > Looks like 21287 it is not a valid defect based on your explanation.
> > How do I rev back my changes?
>
> Here is how you can see the patch:
>
> cvs diff -u -r 1.102 -r 1.103 mod_mem_cache.c
>
> revison numbers are from cvs.apache.org.
>
>
André Malo wrote:
> * Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Though since it really affects any logging it probably should be called
>>UNESCAPED_LOGGING or similar. And probably a similar patch applied to 1.3.
>
>
> It only affects error logging.
that was my intent.
> What do you me
Sander Striker wrote:
On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 03:48, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Looks like 21287 it is not a valid defect based on your explanation.
How do I rev back my changes?
Here is how you can see the patch:
cvs diff -u -r 1.102 -r 1.103 mod_mem_cache.c
revison numbers are from cvs.apache.org.
Ve
Good morning all,
For a (private) project I am working on, I would appreciate a little
advice. The system produces mostly dynamic content, very little static
stuff. A lot of the data that will be served up by httpd comes from a
daemon running on the same host, and all of the required data is in
* Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, is it wise to add a configure option for it?
>
> how do you mean? I was trying to make it just a compile time option,
> similar to -DBIG_SECURITY_HOLE (which seems to me a bigger risk than
> this).
> do you mean to require users to change
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:32:29PM +0100, André Malo wrote:
> * Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > However, is it wise to add a configure option for it?
> >
> > how do you mean? I was trying to make it just a compile time option,
> > similar to -DBIG_SECURITY_HOLE (which seems to
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:49:15PM -0700, Jean-Jacques Clar wrote:
> Attached are 2.0.48 numbers on RH AS 2.1 and 3.0.
> Apache is build with worker MPM and default options on both versions.
>
> C:
> Apache is servicing more requests per sec on 2.1 on 1 and 2 CPUs, 3.0
> is picking up the slack b
>HyperThreading enabled or not when limited to 1/2 CPUs, if these are HT>CPUs? That can make a difference (either way) when benchmarking IIRC.
CPUs are not HT.
1. What was the CPU utilization during the tests
2. What size of file was being benched?
Regards,
Peter
From: Jean-Jacques Clar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2.0.48 worker mpm on RH3
It would be cool if there was a way to create custom bucket types. It
looks like all we would have to do is expand how the built in buckets
declare themselves.
Any comments. I'm willing to play with it..
--
Brian Akins
Senior Systems Engineer
CNN Internet Technologies
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Kean Johnston wrote:
> Good morning all,
>
> For a (private) project I am working on, I would appreciate a little
> advice. The system produces mostly dynamic content, very little static
> stuff. A lot of the data that will be served up by httpd comes from a
> daemon running on
The current request falls in one of the MUST RFC condition,
line 168 mod_cache.c:
---
else { if (ap_cache_liststr(NULL, cc_in, "no-store", NULL) || ap_cache_liststr(NULL, pragma, "no-cache", NULL) || (auth != NULL)) { /* delete the previously cached fi
>1. What was the CPU utilization during the tests
I think CPU utilization is above 90% during the test,
at least on my 4 CPUs box, which is not the one used to
gather the submitted results. I could find out but will be
delighted to have more details on what you are exactly
looking for based on CP
Thanks for the response, Nick.
SHared memory is not easy with Apache. If you implement a pool /
pointers in shared memory, then you're significantly advancing it.
If you need shared memory pointers, you might be better-off writing
a separate daemon, and connecting to your module.
Yeah thats what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
stoddard2003/12/15 15:19:14
Modified:server/mpm/winnt child.c mpm_winnt.c mpm_winnt.h
Log:
Win32: Rename WindowsSocketsWorkaround directive to Win32DisableAcceptEx.
Clean up code paths.
Index: mpm_winnt.c
-static const char *set_sockets_workaround (cm
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Brian Akins wrote:
> It would be cool if there was a way to create custom bucket types. It
> looks like all we would have to do is expand how the built in buckets
> declare themselves.
You can do that already. :-) Have a look at the "error" buckets in httpd
as an example.
These are comments copied from ap_cache_check_freshness()
line 163 cache_util.c:
--
* - RFC2616 14.9.4 End to end reload, Cache-Control: no-cache. no-cache in * either the request or the cached response means that we must * revalidate the request unconditionally,
Jean-Jacques Clar wrote:
These are comments copied from ap_cache_check_freshness()
line 163 cache_util.c:
--
* - RFC2616 14.9.4 End to end reload, Cache-Control: no-cache.
no-cache in
* either the request or the cached response means that we must
* revalidate th
19 matches
Mail list logo
