Based on my experience, this wouldn't be a high-quality solution, it would
be a hack. I've seen very few cases where load spiked enough to be an
issue, but was transient enough that a solution like this would work - and
in those cases, plain old Unix multitasking normally suffices.
What happens
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
With the simultaneous release of Apache 2.1-stable and Apache
2.2-development, the Apache HTTP Server project is moving to a more
predictable stable code branch, while opening the development to forward
progress without concern for breaking the
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Sander van Zoest wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 02:11:59AM +0200, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
-Makes the wait loop no longer endless - but causes it
to bail out (and emit some warnings ahead of time) after
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
--On Thursday, September 12, 2002 8:50 AM -0500 Jenkins, David
I disagree almost completely. If you are truly dedicated to the ASF
community, you will understand the cautiousness necessary in deciding
who has commit privs.
I was mainly
[I am not an Apache contributor, merely a lurker, but...]
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Jon Travis wrote:
These are not coercive tactics. These are processes which are
beneficial to both the ASF and Covalent. I cannot continually monitor
the progress of this project for eternity. I'm astonished
I'm not sure I understand what your goal is, here. The discussion seems
to be +1 for including your parser somewhere in some Apache project in the
future, there's just no clear concensus on where. Is there any reason you
can't just release your project under the ASF license and be done with it?
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
There's no reason to bloat all of Apache and it's well behaved modules
with extra code, when only a handful of modules care to report that they
can't be compiled for a threaded architecture.
The strict engineer in me agrees. The pragmatic
On Mon, 20 May 2002, Greg Stein wrote:
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 12:32:20PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
On Win32, we load-unload-reload the parent, then load-unload-reload
the child config. Losing both redundant unload-load sequences will
be a huge win at startup.
Yup. If we
On Thu, 16 May 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
My own opinion is that we leave things exactly as they are today. If
you are running the binary by hand, you are taking some responsibility
for knowing what you are doing. That means having the environment
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
mod_perl child processes save a lot of memory when they can share memory
with the parent process and quite often we get reports from people that
they lose that shared memory when the system decides to page out the
parent's memory pages because they are
yourself ASAP versus Kill
yourself when you come up for air between requests. The notion of
killing everything which _looks_ like an Apache child scares me (what if
you're running multiple servers on a box?).]
Later,
scott hess
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
11 matches
Mail list logo
