On 09/02/2008 03:29 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 5:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+/*
+ * In the case that we are handling a reverse proxy connection and this
+ * is not a request that is coming over an already kept alive connection
+ * with the client, do
On 9/1/08 8:11 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 31, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Bing Swen wrote:
To my knowledge, the one thread per connection network i/o model
is a
suboptimal use
threads vs. events is certainly not, imo, a finalized debate
yet with a known winner or
Akins, Brian wrote on Tuesday, September 02, 2008 11:31 PM:
sustain about 45k requests/sec on our build on a dual dual-core system
with
a network card that supports Linux NAPI (that made a huge difference).
Without much tuning 35k is pretty easy. (Note: this was very small files,
bcs it's so
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 9/1/08 8:11 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 31, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Bing Swen wrote:
To my knowledge, the one thread per connection network i/o model
is a
suboptimal use
threads vs. events is certainly not, imo, a finalized debate
yet
On 28 Aug 2008, at 12:23 PM, Ian Ward Comfort wrote:
[...]
Any further thoughts on this thread? If not, I'll take a stab at a
patch and cross my fingers re: inclusion.
--
Ian Ward Comfort [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Administrator, Student Computing, Stanford University
On 9/2/08 1:02 PM, bing swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a little different viewpoint. According to some recent test reports
comparing Apache 2.2 and Nginx 0.6/0.7 (from a blog website admin.), Apache
could do as well as Nginx when there are a few connections each of which
carries many
Akins, Brian wrote on Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:07 AM
I saw this comparison somewhere. It just does not seem to match what I
have
seen. Our little ole website has been known to take a few connections
from
slow clients, but we have not really seen this slow down. I'd like to see
more
bill stoddard wrote:
I completely agree, it's not a slam-dunk conclusion that async/event
driven connection management in an http server is clearly superior.
However, Bing mentioned Windows... Apache on Windows is not a stellar
performer, especially compared to a server that fully exploits
Hi all,
Is there a reason why apachectl no longer asserts a successful
configtest before trying to restarting or gracefully-restarting a
running server? This was the behaviour back in the days of 1.3, and
avoided many a disaster where a running server was accidentally killed
by a broken
On 9/2/08 3:15 PM, bing swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems the test (done by another guy) indeed used an everything plus the
kitchen sink default Apache httpd at first, but then dropping off 3/4 of
all of the default modules (maybe not that much, but only for serving
static pages) seemed
Ian Ward Comfort wrote:
I don't think I understand the API versioning issues, but the
possibility of a 2.2 backport would make me happy. :)
Basically if you add additional config directive it cannot
be backported. Anyhow I agree with Nick that using existing
directives from mod_rewrite or
Mladen Turk wrote:
Ian Ward Comfort wrote:
I don't think I understand the API versioning issues, but the
possibility of a 2.2 backport would make me happy. :)
Basically if you add additional config directive it cannot
be backported. Anyhow I agree with Nick that using existing
directives
12 matches
Mail list logo
