Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 06:55:37PM +0100, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:51:36AM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
Python!
Excellent choice - at least that way I won't have to even consider
trying ;)
Even Perl would be an improvement over
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
If the user must rewrite their content handlers to pay attention to
thread
jumps, and must use some sort of yeild beyond
apr_socket_poll/select(), then
I'd agree it becomes 3.0.
I wouldn't worry about protocol/mpm authors, who are a breed to ourselves
and should
Jess Holle wrote:
So if one uses worker and few processes (i.e. lots of threads per),
then Solaris should be fine?
That's what people think, but I'd like to see some numbers.
I've never put a worker Apache into production because most of our
systems depend on PHP or something else
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Is there anything we can do in 2.4/3.0 that will help gain that trust?
It's not Apache's fault. It's not even PHP's fault. It's a much
bigger problem with the open source libraries that people link into
PHP, Perl, Python and the like.
The problem is
Nick Kew wrote:
That looks a lot like Windows' market position. And I suspect it's no
accident: both products have heaped on new 'goodies', all too often
at the expense of other considerations. It's IMO also no accident
that PHP is moving towards a Windows-like security track record.
Brian Akins wrote:
This is probably way off topic for this list. I was searching for
something related to php this morning (I know, I know... But some
people here need php) and the majority of the google hits where FUD
sites. Most of them generally say Apache is bloated and slow, you
should
Joshua Slive wrote:
Suggestions to improve
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.1/misc/perf-tuning.html
are very welcome. Suggestions backed by data are even better.
Basically there's nothing quantitative there. There's a lot of talk
about some operating systems and not a lot of talk about
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
If it's on equivalent hardware (i.e. Linux/Intel vs. Solaris/Intel on
the same box), I doubt there will be an extreme performance gap. In
fact, I've often seen Solaris outperform Linux on certain types of
loads. In my experience, a lot of Linux network card
Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
Currently Windows, Linux and Unix only use two levels of privilege - Ring 3
and Ring 0. Everybody and there uncle's code want to run at Ring 0. Another
really bad idea, as once I introduce a network/video/keyboard/whatever
driver at that level I can execute malicious
Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
I see a lot of frustration going on. The thing is, httpd's
development process is nearly identical to Subversion's process... we
stole most of it from you folks! So why all the angst in httpd-land,
but not in Subversion-land?
It's really a lack of
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Paul A Houle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IMO market-share doesn't relate to project activity. The
word I most associate with apache development is empowerment;
cheifly to empower users to build better web stuff. Users that
need to tweak the software in order to make
Nick Kew wrote:
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
In what sense low-cost?
Apache's high startup cost is self-reinforcing. We know it's a
once-only thing, so we have every module do expensive things at
startup rather than per-request. I don't see how inetd would
affect that. The only thing you'd
I'm in the middle of setting up (selective) WebDAV access for
particular directories on a set of (almost) identical vhosts with
complicated requirements for access control. I thought of a bunch of
Apache gripes that I have often:
(1) I've evolved a nice system for implementing virtual
Jem Berkes wrote:
I could also start work on a mod_smtpd_dnsbl if the mentors feel that is
worthwhile? This would look up a connecting IP address against a blacklist
and return a descriptive string to mod_smtpd if the client should be
rejected with an error: 550 5.7.1 Email rejected because
Maxime Petazzoni wrote:.
As promised : a first try at XHTML mockup. Comments about DOM
structure and XHTML semantics are welcome !
http://skikda.bulix.org/~sam/ajax/jsless/
On firefox/win32, the box list and message lists aren't
vertically aligned correctly (at least for me.) Other
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I therefore Call A Vote on whether we should support mod_ftp for
inclusion into the Incubator and if we should accept mod_ftp upon
graduation from the Incubator.
I don't know if I get a vote, but it's
-1
This would have been an exciting project in 1989, but ftp
Jem Berkes wrote:
Hi all, I'm another student working on mod_smtpd
Been running httpd 2.x since it appeared, but am new to development.
What does mod_smtpd do? Is it a sendmail replacer or does it let
people request content via smtp or what?
Luo Gang wrote:
mod_smtpd is a SMTP protocol handler, used to receive mails by SMTP,
maybe it will use sendmail as its MTA(not sure). Somebody hope it could also
include a spam filter.
Hooks for a spam/virus filter aren't optional if it's an autoresponder:
running an
Jem Berkes wrote:
This is the problem encountered by many spam filters, as to be most
effective they really need to be _involved_ in the SMTP transaction and not
just stage 2, after receipt happens. Think greylisting as an example.
You read this?
http://www.acme.com/mail_filtering/
Paul Querna wrote:
As some of you might be aware, one of the Summer of Code Projects is
an SMTP protocol module for httpd 2.x.
Huh?
This weekend we had the kind of experience with Apache httpd which
we expect from Microsoft IIS or Tomcat.
We're running a self-compiled 2.0.54 on RHEL 4 on x86_64 on a 4-way
machine.
Our server got kicked around midnight to rotate logs, but around
5AM we started getting a large
Akins, Brian wrote:
Sorry if I missed it, which mpm are you using?
prefork
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Offhand, no, but I'd suggest looking at Piped Log scripts.
This would be pretty trivial to do (even looking for very
specific messages or masking out other common occurances.)
The messages can then be written to one or more log file,
as well.
See the ErrorLog
On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:51:55 -0700, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sergey Ten wrote:
Hello all,
SourceLabs is developing a set of tests (and appropriate workload data)
to
perform stress testing of an Apache server using requests for static
HTML
pages only. We are interested in getting
On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:51:55 -0700, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sergey Ten wrote:
Hello all,
SourceLabs is developing a set of tests (and appropriate workload data)
to
perform stress testing of an Apache server using requests for static
HTML
pages only. We are interested in getting
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:01:34 -0700, Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but I very much disagree. I think back to the old days of
access.conf, httpd.conf, and srm.conf. As an administrator, I absolutely
detested that layout. I could NEVER figure out which file a given
configuration was in.
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 13:58:56 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time), Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does someone with a high-traffic, general-interest web site want to take
a look through their logs for these user-agent strings. I don't mind
keeping them if they make up even 1/100 of a
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:18:17 +0200 (SAST), Graham Leggett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The trouble with the authentication problem is that the credentials used
for authentication are often used for way more than just finding out
whether a user has access. That said, this is definitely a very useful
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 03:17 PM 2/28/2005, Paul A. Houle wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:09:55 +, Wayne S. Frazee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Oh boy - you don't know *what* you are missing :) Threads on
Linux barely differ from distinct processes, while on Solaris
they are truly
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:09:55 +, Wayne S. Frazee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A move to 2.0 or 2.1 will take place gradually over time, I think, once
PHP can be used with some expectation of stability on a
non-prefork-MPM. Note: I am not insinuating PHP is not thread safe, but
rather many
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:31:19 +, Wayne S. Frazee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have seen much that would purport the
worker MPM to deliever gains in terms of capacity handling and
capacity-burst-handling as well as slimming down the resource footprint
of the
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:57:20 +0100, Matthieu Estrade [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I think it's the best way.
Maybe we could also provide two packages, httpd-with-apr and another one
without apr
No, they should be separate, and having two different packages is just
a
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
33 matches
Mail list logo
