Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
Op Tue, 7 Aug 2007, schreef Bas Scheffers: all layers are easily interchangeable. You can use Apache + MySQL with Perl, Python or Ruby. You can use Perl/Python/Ruby with Postgresql or I think that is hitting the nail on the head: You can use Apache + MySQL People think web development and they think Apache, not in the least because that is what every hosting company offers. The language is probably second and depends on what runs well inside Apache. Unfortunately that would be PHP. Don't underestimate the power of free advertising through URLs. Every url in .php is an advert for PHP, showing the world what everyone uses for his website. TCL is not the problem, it is a great language and superior to PHP. No need to excuse yourself for using the superior solutions. I think a few reasons contribute to the low popularity of AOLserver * It interoperates badly with Apache. Both need port 80. While solutions exits, none is ideal, and none come with Batteries included. Many people (most) cannot rely 100% on AOLserver, despite ocnsidering it superior for web development. * It is bad in multi-user environments. You cannot give every use his own space to develop his website in. Actually this problem seems easy to solve, since AOLserver can run multiple instances of itself since 4.0. * Nobody pushes the development. While AOLserver is maintained and has even nice new features since 4.5, there are few releases and less progress than other web solutions. Despite this, AOLservers superior design still counts a lot. * Despite open source, development happens behind closed doors. Rather than contributing people wanting to develop start projects like opennsd and naviserver. This is a terrible waste of development recources. Daniël Mantione -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
On 2007.08.07, Bas Scheffers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always shake my head when this lets implement PHP/Ruby/TechDuJour in AOLserver, that will make it popular comes up. First of all everyone seems to find that only Tcl is any good a threading, so you can't make other languages fit properly. Two thoughts I've been giving a lot of time to, lately: 1) JavaScript: the SpiderMonkey JS engine is thread-safe and I've been integrating it into AOLserver (see: nsjsapi). John Resig has started a small JS library that makes running some client-side JS on the server-side, which I'm hoping to take advantage of. My rationale here is that JS is probably the single web scripting language that is known by the most number of people; regardless of which web stack you use, you're also going to have to use JavaScript. Why not just build the entire web stack with JavaScript, on the client and server side? 2) Lua: Lua seems like the natural successor to Tcl--small, lightweight, simple syntax, and *embeddable*. (FWIW, I don't like Lua's syntax, but who cares.) The folks at Adobe are using it seriously (Adobe Lightroom), game developers are using it (World of Warcraft), etc. Lua's embeddability in threaded applications comes in two flavors: separate Lua States (analogus to Tcl's interp), or new child states which have a shared parent global state (serialized through a global lock). The latter is probably close to what we'd ultimately want for AOLserver in a Tcl_CloneInterp that had shared global state with copy-on-write (COW) and/or global lock semantics. What makes AOLserver AOLserver is the Tcl API; libraries, ns_db and nsv are what makes it better than anything available on Apache. On Apache, lacking nsv's (and nv's), folks use memcache. Naturally, having nsv's out of the box instead of having to figure out and set up memcache makes things simpler. (Yes, memcache is ultimately a whole lot more powerful than AOLserver's nsv's--I know this.) -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dossy.org/ Panoptic Computer Network | http://panoptic.com/ He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on. (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
Daniël Mantione wrote: I think a few reasons contribute to the low popularity of AOLserver * It interoperates badly with Apache. Both need port 80. While solutions exits, none is ideal, and none come with Batteries included. Many people (most) cannot rely 100% on AOLserver, despite ocnsidering it superior for web development. I think this may be more of a marketing issue than a technical one. What does apache do that aolserver doesn't? Ok, there are alot of C modules written for apache. How many of these are in high demand? Other than the programming language ones which others are addressing, I'd guess very few, like mod_auth, mod_include, mod_fastcgi, mod_cgi, and *gag* mod_rewrite. AOLserver can do all of these things just fine, although as you say there is no 'batteries included' modules for handling some of them. * It is bad in multi-user environments. You cannot give every use his own space to develop his website in. Actually this problem seems easy to solve, since AOLserver can run multiple instances of itself since 4.0. You can very easily give each user his own space to develop a website in (e.g., ~/public_html) the only problem is if they want to do things as themself rather than as the aolserver uid, since AFAIK setuid and threads do not interact well. A solution could be built using nsproxy with the proxy running setuid as the desired user and sate interps for user ADPs or something along those lines but it would be a fair amount of work that no one seems to be asking for right now. What do you mean by running multiple instances of itself? Back in the old (3.4) days I used nsvhr to proxy to a few completely separate servers running as separate users which worked mostly ok (there were some lingering networking bugs in nsvhr that I was never able to squash) However the server tends to grow in memory size over time and running multiple independent servers just worsens the problem. -J -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
Op Tue, 7 Aug 2007, schreef Jeff Rogers: Daniël Mantione wrote: I think a few reasons contribute to the low popularity of AOLserver * It interoperates badly with Apache. Both need port 80. While solutions exits, none is ideal, and none come with Batteries included. Many people (most) cannot rely 100% on AOLserver, despite ocnsidering it superior for web development. I think this may be more of a marketing issue than a technical one. What does apache do that aolserver doesn't? If have had very few situations that could rely 100% on AOLserver. Be it PHP scripts (yes, I know you can install PHP in AOLserver), multi-user requirements or political issues. Ok, there are alot of C modules written for apache. How many of these are in high demand? Other than the programming language ones which others are addressing, I'd guess very few, like mod_auth, mod_include, mod_fastcgi, mod_cgi, and *gag* mod_rewrite. AOLserver can do all of these things just fine, although as you say there is no 'batteries included' modules for handling some of them. There is no major technical issue with AOLserver. Not at all. The devil is in the details. There are social issues at work (of which some might be addressable with minor technical interventions). * It is bad in multi-user environments. You cannot give every use his own space to develop his website in. Actually this problem seems easy to solve, since AOLserver can run multiple instances of itself since 4.0. You can very easily give each user his own space to develop a website in (e.g., ~/public_html) Correct, I did this on one of my systems. the only problem is if they want to do things as themself rather than as the aolserver uid, since AFAIK setuid and threads do not interact well. ... and there is one TCL library, all databases need to be configured globally, cgi scripts cannot be run with user permissions and more. For multi-user systems, Apache is superior. A solution could be built using nsproxy with the proxy running setuid as the desired user and sate interps for user ADPs or something along those lines but it would be a fair amount of work that no one seems to be asking for right now. Yes, this is one of the solutions. It can technically be done, in multiple ways, it is even doable, but that is not the point. There is competition on port 80, and you need to have a good story to convince your sysadmin (or find concensus in your open source project) to replace Apache with AOLserver on port 80. Again, a social issue. What do you mean by running multiple instances of itself? Back in the old (3.4) days I used nsvhr to proxy to a few completely separate servers running as separate users which worked mostly ok (there were some lingering networking bugs in nsvhr that I was never able to squash) You can have one AOLserver that has multiple configuration files, TCL libraries, ..., each serving a different domain. See http://panoptic.com/wiki/aolserver/Virtual_Hosting Make this implicit (i.e. give a command line option so each user can automatically have his own config file, tcl library, etc.), and installing AOLserver on a server rather than Apache becomes feasible for a hosting provider. However the server tends to grow in memory size over time and running multiple independent servers just worsens the problem. I restart my AOLserver at 04:00 each night, which is enough to elmininate the problem, but this is indeed an issue for current users. I believe it has little to do with popularity, though. Daniël -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
Daniël Mantione wrote: I think this may be more of a marketing issue than a technical one. What does apache do that aolserver doesn't? If have had very few situations that could rely 100% on AOLserver. Be it PHP scripts (yes, I know you can install PHP in AOLserver), multi-user requirements or political issues. There is no major technical issue with AOLserver. Not at all. The devil is in the details. There are social issues at work (of which some might be addressable with minor technical interventions). We are in agreement here. This is really the heart of it - it is a social and/or political issue, not a technical one that leads to the poor interoperability. Which is exactly what I said - its a marketing issue. Maybe we (the community) could do the legwork for those technical interventions to address some of those social concerns. Item #1 for such interventions I think would be a apache - aolserver migration guide, not aimed so much at moving a configuration from apache to aolserver (although that would be useful too) as helping an admin who has configured apache previously configure aolserver. the only problem is if they want to do things as themself rather than as the aolserver uid, since AFAIK setuid and threads do not interact well. ... and there is one TCL library, all databases need to be configured globally, cgi scripts cannot be run with user permissions and more. For multi-user systems, Apache is superior. Admittedly its been a long time since I've worked in a highly multi-user environment, but I think these points mostly apply to running external CGI programs, and once you're execing an external progrqam it doesn't matter too much what webserver you're running. For in-process stuff (at least with mod_perl) apache suffers all these same problems, in many cases to a far greater extent. Yes, this is one of the solutions. It can technically be done, in multiple ways, it is even doable, but that is not the point. There is competition on port 80, and you need to have a good story to convince your sysadmin (or find concensus in your open source project) to replace Apache with AOLserver on port 80. Again, a social issue. Again, a marketing problem. It comes down to no one is using it because no one is using it. Idle curiosity - I wonder if anyone is running a system with both apache and aolserver listening on port 80 on different ifs/ips. Should be possible and not even difficult, tho probably of limited utility. -J -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
You might also want to try running AOLserver without the Tcl threaded allocator (Zippy). You might want to try Hoard or if on Linux maybe give Google's TCMalloc a shot. Remember, the Zippy allocator is optimized for lock avoidance, and this comes at the cost of greater memory overhead. - n On 8/7/07, Tom Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: None of the issues listed really have a solution. The truth is that if you are doing mass hosting, you should use Apache, the memory footprint is just too great at some point with AOLserver because you have to load each server at startup. At the very least all code for all virtual servers is in memory, at least one copy. Mass hosting of even a hundred domains becomes near impossible. AOLserver cannot be effective in that situation. Apache really is more like sshd, tcpserver, or any other daemon that is just used to startup another process. tom jackson On Tuesday 07 August 2007 11:37, Daniël Mantione wrote: Op Tue, 7 Aug 2007, schreef Jeff Rogers: Daniël Mantione wrote: I think a few reasons contribute to the low popularity of AOLserver * It interoperates badly with Apache. Both need port 80. While solutions exits, none is ideal, and none come with Batteries included. Many people (most) cannot rely 100% on AOLserver, despite ocnsidering it superior for web development. I think this may be more of a marketing issue than a technical one. What does apache do that aolserver doesn't? If have had very few situations that could rely 100% on AOLserver. Be it PHP scripts (yes, I know you can install PHP in AOLserver), multi-user requirements or political issues. Ok, there are alot of C modules written for apache. How many of these are in high demand? Other than the programming language ones which others are addressing, I'd guess very few, like mod_auth, mod_include, mod_fastcgi, mod_cgi, and *gag* mod_rewrite. AOLserver can do all of these things just fine, although as you say there is no 'batteries included' modules for handling some of them. There is no major technical issue with AOLserver. Not at all. The devil is in the details. There are social issues at work (of which some might be addressable with minor technical interventions). * It is bad in multi-user environments. You cannot give every use his own space to develop his website in. Actually this problem seems easy to solve, since AOLserver can run multiple instances of itself since 4.0. You can very easily give each user his own space to develop a website in (e.g., ~/public_html) Correct, I did this on one of my systems. the only problem is if they want to do things as themself rather than as the aolserver uid, since AFAIK setuid and threads do not interact well. ... and there is one TCL library, all databases need to be configured globally, cgi scripts cannot be run with user permissions and more. For multi-user systems, Apache is superior. A solution could be built using nsproxy with the proxy running setuid as the desired user and sate interps for user ADPs or something along those lines but it would be a fair amount of work that no one seems to be asking for right now. Yes, this is one of the solutions. It can technically be done, in multiple ways, it is even doable, but that is not the point. There is competition on port 80, and you need to have a good story to convince your sysadmin (or find concensus in your open source project) to replace Apache with AOLserver on port 80. Again, a social issue. What do you mean by running multiple instances of itself? Back in the old (3.4) days I used nsvhr to proxy to a few completely separate servers running as separate users which worked mostly ok (there were some lingering networking bugs in nsvhr that I was never able to squash) You can have one AOLserver that has multiple configuration files, TCL libraries, ..., each serving a different domain. See http://panoptic.com/wiki/aolserver/Virtual_Hosting Make this implicit (i.e. give a command line option so each user can automatically have his own config file, tcl library, etc.), and installing AOLserver on a server rather than Apache becomes feasible for a hosting provider. However the server tends to grow in memory size over time and running multiple independent servers just worsens the problem. I restart my AOLserver at 04:00 each night, which is enough to elmininate the problem, but this is indeed an issue for current users. I believe it has little to do with popularity, though. Daniël -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
Tom Jackson wrote: None of the issues listed really have a solution. The truth is that if you are doing mass hosting, you should use Apache, the memory footprint is just too great at some point with AOLserver because you have to load each server at startup. At the very least all code for all virtual servers is in memory, at least one copy. Mass hosting of even a hundred domains becomes near impossible. AOLserver cannot be effective in that situation. Apache really is more like sshd, tcpserver, or any other daemon that is just used to startup another process. Mass hosting alot of domains with vastly different setups isn't practical, but hosting lots of domains all configured identically can be done easily, just not with virtual hosts as such. It would need something more along the lines of apache's mod_vhost_alias where parameters for the virtual host are dynamically configured according to rules from a template rather than explicitly. The suggestion from long long ago was to use a custom UrlToFile proc (which sadly can only be done from C code) that is sensitive to the Host header. I'm not trying to be super-advocate boy here, but it just seems like everyone here is making arguments as to why aolserver really isn't good enough compared to apache and it saddens me - if the support community doesn't believe in the product, what chance do I have of convincing my boss next time he wants to shut down that app written in some ancient tcl and aolserver app because its not apache, java, and perl? (to be fair, 3.1 *is* ancient, they're just afraid to let me upgrade it. *sigh*) -J -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
Op Tue, 7 Aug 2007, schreef Tom Jackson: None of the issues listed really have a solution. The truth is that if you are doing mass hosting, you should use Apache, the memory footprint is just too great at some point with AOLserver because you have to load each server at startup. At the very least all code for all virtual servers is in memory, at least one copy. Mass hosting of even a hundred domains becomes near impossible. AOLserver cannot be effective in that situation. Apache really is more like sshd, tcpserver, or any other daemon that is just used to startup another process. I agree, but it is fixable. Unused servers could be started an shut down on demand so a web site that receives 5 hits/day doesn't eat memory continuously. However, I am again talking in terms of technical solutions, while the actual thing is to address the social/political problem of AOLserver not being useable in a multi-user environment. A hoster can already sell an AOLserver hosting service if it can serve let's say, 25 users on one server. If each customer that needs AOLserver needs a dedicated server and ip-address, business wise this is a big no no. Daniël -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
I have several interfaces, but one of my interfaces is configured with apache on port 80, and several AOLServer instances on other ports. Apache serves some pages/applications itself and forwards the rest to AOLServer. Rusty Daniël Mantione wrote: Op Tue, 7 Aug 2007, schreef Jeff Rogers: Idle curiosity - I wonder if anyone is running a system with both apache and aolserver listening on port 80 on different ifs/ips. Should be possible and not even difficult, tho probably of limited utility. Yes, I have setups like this and is the best solution to this problem. However, in many situations, multiple ip-addresses are unavailable and Apache and AOLserver compete for port 80. Daniël -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
Idle curiosity - I wonder if anyone is running a system with both apache and aolserver listening on port 80 on different ifs/ips. Should be possible and not even difficult, tho probably of limited utility. Yes, I have setups like this and is the best solution to this problem. However, in many situations, multiple ip-addresses are unavailable and Apache and AOLserver compete for port 80. I use AOLserver + lighthttpd on the same machine, different IPs, so that mp3s and GIF/JPEGs are fed off lighthttpd, which is stupid and very fast (it's wikipedia's media server) -john -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
Op Tue, 7 Aug 2007, schreef Nathan Folkman: You might also want to try running AOLserver without the Tcl threaded allocator (Zippy). You might want to try Hoard or if on Linux maybe give Google's TCMalloc a shot. Remember, the Zippy allocator is optimized for lock avoidance, and this comes at the cost of greater memory overhead. Yup, I have installations where AOLserver uses very little memory. Try this with Apache :) wwwrun4552 0.0 1.4 7380 3612 ?Sl Jul26 2:21 /opt/aolserver/bin/nsd -ft /opt/aolserver/nsd.tcl -u wwwrun Daniël -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
Op Tue, 7 Aug 2007, schreef Jeff Rogers: I'm not trying to be super-advocate boy here, but it just seems like everyone here is making arguments as to why aolserver really isn't good enough compared to apache and it saddens me - if the support community doesn't believe in the product, what chance do I have of convincing my boss next time he wants to shut down that app written in some ancient tcl and aolserver app because its not apache, java, and perl? (to be fair, 3.1 *is* ancient, they're just afraid to let me upgrade it. *sigh*) :) Many people here can give you a long list why AOLserver is the best web development platform. None of the issues we discuss are in the line of PHP/Perl/Java is better than TCL, because this simply isn't true. AOLserver, after all those years, is still freaking awesome, which is why I use it. That said, there are reasons why it doesn't conquer the world. Many users on this list, me included, run into those reasons, despite being strong AOLserver advocates. Daniël -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
It is possible. ;) There are a number of other things you can do as well to help. One example is configuring your threads such that they die and get reaped after a certain number of requests or time. This will cause memory that is currently tied up in the thread's memory pool to be returned back to the shared memory pool, which can have the net effect of lowering the overall process size. - n On 8/7/07, Daniël Mantione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Op Tue, 7 Aug 2007, schreef Nathan Folkman: You might also want to try running AOLserver without the Tcl threaded allocator (Zippy). You might want to try Hoard or if on Linux maybe give Google's TCMalloc a shot. Remember, the Zippy allocator is optimized for lock avoidance, and this comes at the cost of greater memory overhead. Yup, I have installations where AOLserver uses very little memory. Try this with Apache :) wwwrun4552 0.0 1.4 7380 3612 ?Sl Jul26 2:21 /opt/aolserver/bin/nsd -ft /opt/aolserver/nsd.tcl -u wwwrun Daniël -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- Nathan Folkman [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
Over in naviserver Vlad (I think) did a bunch of work on vmalloc which tries to actually release the memory back to the system (rather than just the shared pool) on thread exit to keep the process size smaller still. I don't recall what the ultimate outcome of it was however. -J Nathan Folkman wrote: It is possible. ;) There are a number of other things you can do as well to help. One example is configuring your threads such that they die and get reaped after a certain number of requests or time. This will cause memory that is currently tied up in the thread's memory pool to be returned back to the shared memory pool, which can have the net effect of lowering the overall process size. - n On 8/7/07, Daniël Mantione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Op Tue, 7 Aug 2007, schreef Nathan Folkman: You might also want to try running AOLserver without the Tcl threaded allocator (Zippy). You might want to try Hoard or if on Linux maybe give Google's TCMalloc a shot. Remember, the Zippy allocator is optimized for lock avoidance, and this comes at the cost of greater memory overhead. Yup, I have installations where AOLserver uses very little memory. Try this with Apache :) wwwrun4552 0.0 1.4 7380 3612 ?Sl Jul26 2:21 /opt/aolserver/bin/nsd -ft /opt/aolserver/nsd.tcl -u wwwrun Daniël -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
Daniël Mantione wrote: I'm not to happy to call it a marketing issue, because this suggests that if you would have a big enough advertising campain, you can make AOLserver win from Apache. This is not the case. Software lock-in is very difficult to undo (ever try to get someone to change their preferred text editor? mail tool? word processor? webserver ... ) But it *can* be done. Either through convincing them of the benefits (slow and painful), forcing them (not always possible), or providing something that they cannot get elsewhere (e.g., a new framework, access to the company email, or whatever). I don't really mean marketing as in a public relations campaign (although that certainly wouldn't hurt), I mean it more as education and changing the public perception. How to do that? If I knew I'd probably be rich (or a politician). It is the way you need to work with AOLserver that causes these problems. Not because AOLserver cannot do something (on the contrary, it is one of the most capable web servers), but you run into social/political issues, like you needing port 80, have a user who has a MySQL application in his public_html directory, etc. Ok then, first up on the FUQ list (that's frequently unasked questions): Q: How do I run AOLserver when I already have apache running on port 80? A: There's lots of ways, some of which may not work due to your particular political/social situation. AOLserver can do nearly everything apache can, so you could just drop apache. If you have SSI files, [instructions for SSI support] If you have CGI files, [instructions for CGI support with setuid] If you have PHP apps, [instructions for PHP setup] If you have extensive rewrite rules, [script for changing them to filters] If your sysadmin/company/project is unwilling to move away from apache for everything and you still need to coexist, you could: - run both apache and aolserver on alternate ports behind a reverse proxy - run apache up front and use mod_proxy to proxy particular requests to aolserver running on an alternate port - bind aolserver and apache to different interfaces on port 80 - run aolserver on e.g., port 81 and include that in your urls Any others? Should something like this be on the wiki? -J -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
On 2007.08.07, Dani?l Mantione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... and there is one TCL library,
There is a shared global Tcl library as well as a per-virtual server Tcl
library. The shared global one is in PREFIX/modules/tcl, while the
per-server Tcl library is configured using:
ns_section ns/server/${servername}/tcl
ns_param library /path/to/server/tcl
Perhaps it's not well-documented (enough) such that people are aware of
it, but it's there.
all databases need to be configured globally,
Indeed, database pool definitions are global. I believe you can
restrict what pools a server has access to, but considering that the
auth. credentials are readable by anyone, it's still a security issue.
cgi scripts cannot be run with user permissions and more. For
multi-user systems, Apache is superior.
Hold on a second--define superior, please. I see absolutely no reason
to run a separate nsd process per user, giving you full process
isolation instead of this uid-juggling stuff that Apache does. With
Apache, if you want to make a server config change, you have to bounce
the whole process which affects all users. If you run a separate nsd
per user, each individual user is isolated from each other
completely--including server restarts.
If they all need to share the same IP/port, sit a reverse proxy (Pound,
Squid, Perlbal, etc.) on that port and have it proxy requests to the
appropriate nsd bound to its own separate port. Sure, there's going to
be some overhead (the proxy) but it gives you the ultimate in
flexibility--especially if the proxy can be reconfigured at runtime
without a restart.
The net here is that AOLserver really isn't designed to be used by
commodity web resellers who host thousands of tiny sites on a single
box. For non-trivial web applications, you're already going to need to
have some reasonably complex web infrastructure (load balancers, caching
proxies and CDNs, etc.) in place--and as a cog in that larger machinery,
AOLserver certainly solves a set of problems nicely.
-- Dossy
--
Dossy Shiobara | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dossy.org/
Panoptic Computer Network | http://panoptic.com/
He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on. (p. 70)
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the
body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject:
field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
On 2007.08.07, Jeff Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Idle curiosity - I wonder if anyone is running a system with both apache and aolserver listening on port 80 on different ifs/ips. Should be possible and not even difficult, tho probably of limited utility. I certainly do this--I run Apache2 just for mod_dav_svn to run svn.panoptic.com. The rest of my HTTP traffic is served out of AOLserver. Would I really like a chunk of code to do DAV/SVN under AOLserver? You bet. :-) -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dossy.org/ Panoptic Computer Network | http://panoptic.com/ He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on. (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
On 2007.08.07, John Buckman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use AOLserver + lighthttpd on the same machine, different IPs, so that mp3s and GIF/JPEGs are fed off lighthttpd, which is stupid and very fast (it's wikipedia's media server) Out of curiousity--have you benchmarked lighttpd vs. AOLserver (since you already have both set up)? AOL replaced their ArtBlaster (very thin, lightweight, single-threaded HTTP server for static assets) a while back and replaced it with AOLserver 4.0, since it was fast enough ... if lighttpd's benchmarks are significantly better, I'd like to try and understand why/how and start tuning AOLserver to match. I'd just like to know if folks are running lighttpd because it truly is faster, or simply because it isn't AOLserver ... -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dossy.org/ Panoptic Computer Network | http://panoptic.com/ He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on. (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
On 2007.08.07, Jeff Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Over in naviserver Vlad (I think) did a bunch of work on vmalloc which tries to actually release the memory back to the system (rather than just the shared pool) on thread exit to keep the process size smaller still. I don't recall what the ultimate outcome of it was however. I imagine that's a losing battle as then you start to see all sorts of fragmentation issues, I bet. I'm just guessing here; I'm likely wrong and I'm okay with that--I haven't reviewed any of their code, and I'm sure the behavior will be dependent on the underlying OS's memory management implememtation, as well. -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dossy.org/ Panoptic Computer Network | http://panoptic.com/ He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on. (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
On 2007.08.07, Jeff Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok then, first up on the FUQ list (that's frequently unasked questions): Q: How do I run AOLserver when I already have apache running on port 80? A: There's lots of ways, some of which may not work due to your particular political/social situation. AOLserver can do nearly everything apache can, so you could just drop apache. If you have SSI files, [instructions for SSI support] http://panoptic.com/wiki/aolserver/AOLserver_Cookbook#Server-side_Includes I'm only half-joking here--that code I threw up on the wiki was written and tested very, very briefly as a proof-of-concept and only handles the include SSI tag ... it uses a registered ADP tag for its implementation and is likely dangerous to use as-is, but for anyone who wants to bravely add SSI support to AOLserver, it's probably a good starting point. If you have CGI files, [instructions for CGI support with setuid] For per-user CGI support, we could possibly add a setuid-root wrapper like Apache's suEXEC http://httpd.apache.org/docs/1.3/suexec.html. But, for the same reason that Apache doesn't include suEXEC as part of the default installation, I think it'd be foolhardy to make it a default part of AOLserver, as well. But, having support for it might yield some tangible benefits for those poor folks who have to run CGI under AOLserver out there. If you have PHP apps, [instructions for PHP setup] http://panoptic.com/wiki/aolserver/How_to_set_up_PHP_under_AOLserver If you have extensive rewrite rules, [script for changing them to filters] This would be a nice addition to the wiki. Anyone care to help write it? Either that, or should we implement a nsmodrewrite that reads .htaccess files and parses mod_rewrite rules? The big caveat is if you use this, you'll take a performance hit ... ? -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dossy.org/ Panoptic Computer Network | http://panoptic.com/ He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on. (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
Jeff, I cut out what I said, but believe me I have never made an argument that Apache was better than AOLserver for anything other than extreme mass hosting of cgi style applications. If you eliminate fastcgi, maybe you could consider them even, I don't know. But there will always be a difference between the models: AOLserver is single, long running process. Apache can start a new process with any uid/gid for every request. So Apache can start up very quickly, AOLserver startup has an additive startup time. This is a fact, not a criticism. I'm not interested in mass hosting or beating Apache in this category. tom jackson On Tuesday 07 August 2007 13:24, Jeff Rogers wrote: I'm not trying to be super-advocate boy here, but it just seems like everyone here is making arguments as to why aolserver really isn't good enough compared to apache and it saddens me -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
On 7 Aug 2007, at 23:07, Dossy Shiobara wrote: 1) JavaScript: the SpiderMonkey JS engine is thread-safe and I've been integrating it into AOLserver (see: nsjsapi). John Resig has started I'll have a look at that soon! On Apache, lacking nsv's (and nv's), folks use memcache. Naturally, But wouldn't nsv be possible now in the multi-threaded mpm? memcache makes things simpler. (Yes, memcache is ultimately a whole lot more powerful than AOLserver's nsv's--I know this.) Depends on what you use it for; I use nsv for my translation dictionaries (multi-lingual site); it is a small resource that must be shared between interps and doesn't warrant memcache, but using interpreter namespace variables like msgcat would not be very nice. For caching people's profile or product pages and such, memcache obviously is the best way to go, however. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] aolserver focus
On Tuesday 07 August 2007 19:20, Bas Scheffers wrote: For caching people's profile or product pages and such, memcache obviously is the best way to go, however. I'm always interested in how-to stuff. Are there any examples of use, or just general indications? Uhhh, I mean what is memcache, how do you use it and why is it useful? Otherwise, it isn't useful to me or anyone else without a clue. tom jackson -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
