I have got some source code from the link, http://www.engelschall.com/pw/wt/loadbalance/.
I configured it as mentioned in the document. It takes one of the hosts
from an ASCII file.
If the client request contains Cookies then I
parse the
Hi ,
In the Proxy Throughpult Round-Robin method for
load balancing feature available in Apache web server, The mapping
rules are like this.
RewriteEngine onRewriteMap
lb
prg:/path/to/lb.plRewriteRule ^/(.+)$
${lb:$1}
Please see http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html for support-related
questions.
Eli, please don't make a habit out of it answering user questions
on the dev list. With each answer another question pops up, like
you see.
Sander
Hi to everyone,
Working for an ISP with a few mass-hosting servers (a couple thousand
domains), I'm currently trying to find solutions to some of the security
problems this scenario entails.
One being how to set up a secure environment that involved PHP or other
modules where suexec doesn't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Idea: On handling a file, setuid() to owner of file. On closing
connection,
re-engage original uid (nobody, apache, www-data, whatever it is). PHP
will
run under user's UID, other users are save.
The 'solution' is the perchild MPM ;)
Or a dirty hack; run apache as
From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 18 April 2002 16:44
What is the current status on 2.0.36-dev?
Big things that I know of besides what's in bugzilla:
1) The MMAP bucket cleanup problem, which has been responsible for
some (rare-ish) segv's on daedalus [I think I
The 'solution' is the perchild MPM ;)
Or a dirty hack; run apache as root and let it change uid based on the
url's owner or something like:
Directory /www/www.example.org/user/test/
User test
Group users
/Directory
Something like that would be quite nice too, perhost MPM only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Idea: On handling a file, setuid() to owner of file. On closing connection,
re-engage original uid (nobody, apache, www-data, whatever it is). PHP will
run under user's UID, other users are save.
This would be maybe 10 lines of code. It can't be that easy, can it?
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 18 April 2002 16:44
What is the current status on 2.0.36-dev?
Saw the fixes, so this is gone.
2) The worker shutdown segfault ... Jeff, does the patch you committed
fix this for
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
Sent: 22 April 2002 16:33
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 18 April 2002 16:44
What is the current status on 2.0.36-dev?
Saw the fixes,
Anyone care to try reproducing this bug on non-Win32, to reassure us
that it's a general bug across platforms?
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8357
Thanks.
I quickly reviewed the PR and the example does not demonstrate the reported problem.
The
response is HTTP/1.0 compliant. That the server responds with HTTP/1.1 is not
relevant.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Developers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
What signal does apache send to the scripts/programs that i defined in a
piped customlog ? ( Customlog |/usr/bin/myscript %B )
What signals does it send when i do a kill -HUP apache-pid , and for USR1,
and what when apache gets killed with -KILL ?
Nick
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Just to clarify... Unless a case is clearly demonstrated where HTTP/1.1 protocol is
being
used with a client that should have been negotiated down to HTTP/1.0, then this is
not a
defect. We should not change the HTTP/1.1 string in the response.
I quickly reviewed the
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Just to clarify... Unless a case is clearly demonstrated where HTTP/1.1 protocol is
being
used with a client that should have been negotiated down to HTTP/1.0, then this is
not
a
defect. We should not change the HTTP/1.1 string in the response.
I quickly reviewed
Bill Stoddard wrote:
SetEnv force-response-1.0
According to the docs here:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/env.html#special
The point of that was to deal with silly proxies that belched when they
saw HTTP/1.1 (regardless of the actual protocol version of the
response).
Really? I don't intuit
On Monday, April 22, 2002, at 11:11 AM, Joshua Slive wrote:
Bill Stoddard wrote:
SetEnv force-response-1.0
According to the docs here:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/env.html#special
The point of that was to deal with silly proxies that belched when they
saw HTTP/1.1 (regardless of the
I've attached a small patch to perchild that
- makes perchild compile with the server/mpm/perchild -
server/mpm/experimental/perchild move.
- fixes a typo I made in an earlier patch. It ran the GID through the user
name lookup. (I didn't notice because on my test syste the uid, gid,
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 01:46:58PM -0500, Scott Lamb wrote:
I've attached a small patch to perchild that
Oops. No, I didn't. Lemme try that again...
--
Scott Lamb
Index: server/mpm/experimental/perchild/config5.m4
===
RCS file:
I didn't get the patch, can you re-send it? Please put the patch
inline.
Thanks,
Ryan
--
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
645 Howard St. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
San Francisco, CA
-Original Message-
From: Scott Lamb
Never mind, just saw the second message.
Ryan
--
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
645 Howard St. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
San Francisco, CA
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday,
Sorry for the late response.
On Sat, 2002-04-20 at 18:05, Brian Pane wrote:
Austin Gonyou wrote:
...
Given that info, is there a way to do:
...
Since the switch from mutexes to atomic ops on leader/follower, I'm
seeing slightly lower mean response times (on par with worker and
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Sander Striker wrote:
- allocate the sockets out of a special pool so we can clean up the
sockets (using apr_pool_clear(psock)), sleep for 1 sec (should be enough
for all threads to notice the sockets are gone). After that clean
pchild as usual.
From my uninformed
23 matches
Mail list logo
