Paul Querna wrote:
Is COW ability of fork important enough with modern memory and operating
systems, to maintain two significantly different code paths for spawning
children processes?
Background:
One of the things I would like to do on the Simple MPM is unify how
child processes are
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Bing Swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-30 12:10
Bing Swen wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-28 15:12
Hope you've included 64-bit Windows in mind. Make x64 Windows a
first-class citizen in httpd-2.4.x, please.
How is it not a
Paul Querna wrote:
I don't think the intention would be to use a single process on Unix --
we would still spawn multiple children -- they would just be created
using fork+exec of the httpd binary, rather than just fork.
This doesn't make sense - fork is far more efficient than fork+exec, we
On Wed 29 Oct 2008, Paul Querna wrote:
Is COW ability of fork important enough with modern memory and
operating systems, to maintain two significantly different code paths
for spawning children processes?
Don't know if it matters but mod_perl heavily relies on COW. Why drop a
really valuable
Jorge Schrauwen wrote on 2008-10-30 17:03
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Bing Swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-30 12:10
Bing Swen wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-28 15:12
Hope you've included 64-bit Windows in mind. Make x64
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:59:06AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
Is COW ability of fork important enough with modern memory and operating
systems, to maintain two significantly different code paths for spawning
children processes?
I looked at a stock 2.2 install (x86_64) with most modules
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Bing Swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2008-10-30 17:03
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Bing Swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-30 12:10
Bing Swen wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-28
On Oct 29, 2008, at 5:04 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
FWIW, I don't believe in latest and greatest linux distro as a good
measure, but I do believe that there are only a few platforms that
we should make design decisions around:
- Linux 2.6
- FreeBSD 7
- Solaris 10
-
On Oct 29, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/29/2008 05:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: niq
Date: Wed Oct 29 09:41:10 2008
New Revision: 708935
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=708935view=rev
Log:
Introduce modules/system, and mod_unixd.c
mod_unixd.c is only
On Oct 29, 2008, at 5:36 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Akins, Brian wrote:
One of the things I've noticed on a practical level, is that forked
children
in worker wind up being linearized within themselves to some
extent.
Think of how the buffered logs work in mod_log_config (one buffer
Chris Darroch said the following on 10/29/2008 10:35 PM:
Directory /humans_and_friendlies_only
Require valid-user
SatisfyNotAll
Require group alien
SatisfyAny
Require group hostile
Require group neutral
Require group noninterventionist
/SatisfyAny
/SatisfyNotAll
Jorge Schrauwen wrote on 2008-10-30 18:46
biggest problem atm is getting the apr dbd drivers for mysql and such.
(never got that to work)
Personally I'd love to see the httpd project release 64-bit binaries
themselves. But it's a lot of work for not much gain!*
* tests with the early 2.2
On Oct 29, 2008, at 07:32, Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:12:51AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
I've added the Simple MPM to trunk:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/simple/
Great!
- The name. Someone suggest something better than Simple.
I like naming
On 10/30/08 12:48 PM, Manik Taneja [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So it seems that there is a slow-leak perhaps we might be hitting the
problem that has been described in the following post.
http://www.nabble.com/apr-pools---memory-leaks-td19766166.html
FWIW, we always run with
Hi Devs and fellow list lurkers,
I finally took the time to give this SNI business a try.
I compiled the latest branch for the SVN with Kasper's patch on Windoze.
After a hurdle
with OpenSSL 098i that Tom Donovan was kind enough to help me jump over,
I've got
2.2.11-dev with SNI working on
On Oct 29, 2008, at 07:32, Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:12:51AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
I've added the Simple MPM to trunk:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/simple/
Great!
- The name. Someone suggest something better than Simple.
I like naming
On Oct 29, 2008, at 6:21 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
When svn up breaks a source file, at least you get a
meaningful error message pointing to exactly what needs fixing.
This m4 is nasty!
If /usr/bin/m4 were by arbitrary fiat deleted from all unix-like
systems world-wide, there would be
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:16 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
I don't think the intention would be to use a single process on
Unix -- we would still spawn multiple children -- they would just
be created using fork+exec of the httpd binary, rather than just
fork.
This doesn't make sense - fork is
On Oct 30, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Oct 29, 2008, at 6:21 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
When svn up breaks a source file, at least you get a
meaningful error message pointing to exactly what needs fixing.
This m4 is nasty!
If /usr/bin/m4 were by arbitrary fiat deleted from all unix-like
Tim Bray wrote:
On Oct 29, 2008, at 6:21 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
When svn up breaks a source file, at least you get a
meaningful error message pointing to exactly what needs fixing.
This m4 is nasty!
If /usr/bin/m4 were by arbitrary fiat deleted from all unix-like systems
world-wide, there
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Oct 29, 2008, at 6:21 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
When svn up breaks a source file, at least you get a
meaningful error message pointing to exactly what needs fixing.
This m4 is nasty!
If /usr/bin/m4 were by arbitrary fiat
Jim,
It might be too late to do anything, but it doesn't seem that this
announcement email went to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
did they get suck in moderation?
Thanks,
Paul
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Apache HTTP Server 2.2.10 Released
The Apache
On Oct 30, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Oct 29, 2008, at 6:21 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
When svn up breaks a source file, at least you get a
meaningful error message pointing to exactly what needs fixing.
This m4 is
Paul Querna wrote:
Jim,
It might be too late to do anything, but it doesn't seem that this
announcement email went to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I didn't see the moderation message for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Still semi-broken if trying the simple MPM due to both mod_unixd and unixd
being built:
I presume this isn't about simple mpm - that mod_unixd is going to be
modularized for all unix mpm's?
Tony Stevenson wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
Jim,
It might be too late to do anything, but it doesn't seem that this
announcement email went to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I didn't see the moderation message for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You wouldn't have. Sent from jaguNET.com...
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Still semi-broken if trying the simple MPM due to both mod_unixd and unixd
being built:
I presume this isn't about simple mpm - that mod_unixd is going to be
modularized for all unix mpm's?
That's the idea, yes. Plus a decision over whether
27 matches
Mail list logo
