For those interested, check out
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=590641view=rev
pasts tests and works as expected, at least in my limited
testing :)
Again, the main focus in this was to resolve the issue in a
2.2-friendly way. So I'd like to get additional feedback
with that in mind before
On Oct 31, 2007, at 10:42 AM, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Jim Jagielski wrote:
For those interested, check out
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=590641view=rev
pasts tests and works as expected, at least in my limited
testing :)
Again, the main focus in this was to
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Jim Jagielski wrote:
For those interested, check out
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=590641view=rev
pasts tests and works as expected, at least in my limited
testing :)
Again, the main focus in this was to resolve the issue in a
2.2-friendly way. So I'd like to get
On 10/30/2007 08:12 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 22, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The other option, of course, would be to keep the small
buffer but have some some sort of config directive that
indicates whether you want the 1st or last 64 bytes :)
That seems a nice
On Oct 30, 2007, at 4:02 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/30/2007 08:12 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 22, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The other option, of course, would be to keep the small
buffer but have some some sort of config directive that
indicates whether you want
On 10/30/2007 09:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 30, 2007, at 4:02 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/30/2007 08:12 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 22, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The other option, of course, would be to keep the small
buffer but have some some sort of
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Could we start by increasing the existing one, which is rather easily done,
and then move on to doing it the fancy way? If someone has a fancy-patch
right now I'm all for that, but pending that I'd prefer landing some sort
of improvement...
I
On Oct 20, 2007, at 7:02 AM, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
Hi all!
We've been annoyed by the fact that the status page as served by
mod_status only shows the first 64 bytes of the current requests
for a couple of years now.
We know that it's only meant to be a hint, not the complete request
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
Could we start by increasing the existing one, which is rather easily
done, and then move on to doing it the fancy way? If someone has a
fancy-patch right now I'm all for that, but pending that I'd prefer
landing some sort of improvement...
Sounds reasonable.
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
Could we start by increasing the existing one, which is rather easily
done, and then move on to doing it the fancy way? If someone has a
fancy-patch right now I'm all for that, but pending that I'd prefer
landing some sort of improvement...
I don't quite see the
Hi all!
We've been annoyed by the fact that the status page as served by
mod_status only shows the first 64 bytes of the current requests for
a couple of years now.
We know that it's only meant to be a hint, not the complete request in
all conditions, but the problem is that 64 bytes is
+1 to 192 or 256.
This hasn't been changed since (pre?) 1.3 days. Computers have more
memory since then, so this completely makes sense.
-Paul
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
Hi all!
We've been annoyed by the fact that the status page as served by
mod_status only shows the first 64 bytes of
Paul Querna wrote:
+1 to 192 or 256.
~1, actually I'd be +1 to a patch that lets you configure this anywheres
between nothing and 8192.
However, it would end up being one of those goofy 'nonvolatile' config
settings that can't be tweaked in a graceful restart (just like MaxServers
etc), so we
13 matches
Mail list logo
