Original-Nachricht
Betreff: svn commit: r1200590 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: buildconf configure.in srclib/libapreq/buildconf
srclib/libapreq/configure.in
Datum: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:59:08 GMT
Von:pgollu...@apache.org
Author: pgollucci
Date: Thu Nov 10 21:59:07 2011
New
I did a few lua tests and currently the reuse of lua states does not
work. Unfortunately I don't yet see the root cause.
We are constantly creating new lua states, saving them to the pool and
on the next request retrieve null and create a new state. When the
server is shutdown, all of the
On 10 Nov 2011, at 11:12 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
I intend to set MaxMemFree by default. The reason is that some
modules use a lot of memory for a few requests (e.g. mod_dav,
mod_php). With MaxMemFree disabled, the allocators will grow to the
size necessary to serve the most memory
On 11.11.2011 02:16, Rainer Jung wrote:
I did a few lua tests and currently the reuse of lua states does not
work. Unfortunately I don't yet see the root cause.
We are constantly creating new lua states, saving them to the pool and
on the next request retrieve null and create a new state. When
On 10 Nov 2011, at 9:42 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
The input filter API function signature is the following:
apr_status_t func(
ap_filter_t *f,
apr_bucket_brigade *b,
ap_input_mode_t mode,
apr_read_type_e block,
apr_off_t readbytes);
Problems:
1) This
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Joe Orton wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 06:28:00PM -0800, Jeff Trawick wrote:
* There should have been a discussion on dev@ before promoting a
subproject to the main distribution.
* Two weeks before 2.4 GA (well, that's the general desire of those of
the group that spoke
Hi Roy,
please post your config.log and build/config_vars.mk somewhere on
people.apache.org.
Cheers,
Stefan
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I am getting the following on OS X Lion:
Installing configuration files
/bin/sh: ,authn_file,: command not found
/bin/sh: ,authn_dbm,:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Joe Orton wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 06:28:00PM -0800, Jeff Trawick wrote:
* There should have been a discussion on dev@ before promoting a
subproject to the main distribution.
* Two weeks
On 11/10/2011 3:12 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Hi,
I intend to set MaxMemFree by default. The reason is that some modules use a
lot of memory
for a few requests (e.g. mod_dav, mod_php). With MaxMemFree disabled, the
allocators will
grow to the size necessary to serve the most memory intensive
Stealing a plan executed by Colm for 1.3, I'd like to propose that
we set a two week window following committers' return-from-ApacheCon
to execute any backports of general interest and apply important
fixes/backports to pregsub allocation and non-absolute uri parsing.
On approval of this plan, I
On 11/11/2011 9:43 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Stefan Fritschs...@sfritsch.de wrote:
In any case, if including apreq in some version of 2.4.x is planned, we
should not release mod_request with 2.4.0.
After some reflection I agree with Stefan.
+1 to branch 2.4.x
On Nov 11, 2011, at 7:36 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
I see three possible ways forward. In order of personal preference:
1) branch 2.4.x from trunk r1200449, which was the last revision before apreq
++1…
Will wait a bit and will then create the branch...
On Nov 10, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
This means every input filter, must implement all of these different
modes. This significantly complicates modules like mod_ssl and
reqtimeout. Every module to support things like speculative must
support buffering internally.
I would
On Nov 11, 2011, at 4:25 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
My moon-on-a-stick would be for this to be ap_mpm_poll_connections() instead,
and allow the option to add extra connections to the poll (for something like
mod_proxy and friends, with the option to have each of these extra
connections
+1
Regards
Rüdiger
-Original Message-
From: William A. Rowe Jr.
Sent: Freitag, 11. November 2011 17:49
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 2.0.x branch
Stealing a plan executed by Colm for 1.3, I'd like to propose that
we set a two week window
This is done:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/
Let the games begin!
2) Because I had the LuaScope directive below the LuaQuickHandler
container. Needs to move before! Should order matter?
I guess it matters due to exec-on-read of the config sections. We
could probably retrieve this scope info from the dirconfig when the
corresponding hook actually runs
The 2.4.x httpd branch was created from the r1200449 point of
trunk… I've tried to backport pretty much all non-apreq patches
from trunk.
On Nov 11, 2011, at 8:49 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Stealing a plan executed by Colm for 1.3, I'd like to propose that
we set a two week window following committers' return-from-ApacheCon
to execute any backports of general interest and apply important
fixes/backports to pregsub
On Nov 11, 2011, at 9:48 AM, cove...@apache.org wrote:
- licodeINSTALLDIR/code (default ProgramFilesFolder\Apache
Software Foundation\Apache2.2\)/li
+ licodeINSTALLDIR/code (default ProgramFilesFolder\Apache
Software Foundation\Apache2.3\)/li
Shouldn't those things be something
On 11/11/2011 12:01 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
On Nov 11, 2011, at 9:48 AM, cove...@apache.org wrote:
-licodeINSTALLDIR/code (default ProgramFilesFolder\Apache Software
Foundation\Apache2.2\)/li
+licodeINSTALLDIR/code (default ProgramFilesFolder\Apache Software
Foundation\Apache2.3\)/li
I think both sets of ap_release and version.ent should wait for a next
roll on the respective tree to be changed -- thoughts?
On 11/11/2011 12:43 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
I think both sets of ap_release and version.ent should wait for a next
roll on the respective tree to be changed -- thoughts?
No, the tree itself is at 2.4.0-dev (not released). So those files
can be changed now, no harm.
Hi all,
I am developing a module in which I need to create a cache for the duration
of the server process. This cache will basically keep state information in
which requests will query and write too. As a test, I have implemented a
simple cache using a hash table in which I read the count of
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Jason Gionta jjgio...@ncsu.edu wrote:
Hi all,
I am developing a module in which I need to create a cache for the duration
of the server process. This cache will basically keep state information in
which requests will query and write too. As a test, I have
On 11.11.2011 09:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The 2.4.x httpd branch was created from the r1200449 point of
trunk… I've tried to backport pretty much all non-apreq patches
from trunk.
I guess we are still on CTR on that branch?
Rainer
On 11/11/2011 1:27 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 11.11.2011 09:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The 2.4.x httpd branch was created from the r1200449 point of
trunk… I've tried to backport pretty much all non-apreq patches
from trunk.
I guess we are still on CTR on that branch?
Absolutely until 2.4.0 is
-0
I DO want the EOL, but not until after 2.4 has a couple of GAs, if only
because folks might not update twice.
Issac
On 11/11/2011 09:13, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
+1
Regards
Rüdiger
-Original Message-
From: William A. Rowe Jr.
Sent: Freitag, 11. November 2011 17:49
Jim++
Is there a consensus to do the apreq - apr/perl/httpd split? IIRC,
last time it came up, there were objections...
Issac
On 11/11/2011 09:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The 2.4.x httpd branch was created from the r1200449 point of
trunk… I've tried to backport pretty much all non-apreq
* William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Stealing a plan executed by Colm for 1.3, I'd like to propose that
we set a two week window following committers' return-from-ApacheCon
to execute any backports of general interest and apply important
fixes/backports to pregsub allocation and non-absolute uri
On Nov 11, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 11.11.2011 09:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The 2.4.x httpd branch was created from the r1200449 point of
trunk… I've tried to backport pretty much all non-apreq patches
from trunk.
I guess we are still on CTR on that branch?
Yep.
I believe that is what is happening. The hash table still exists because
the new requests will count. But the hash table seems to be empty after
the keepalive timeout expires.
Do I have a misunderstanding of how the server process pool handles memory?
I will even being to bring to light this
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
Hi,
I intend to set MaxMemFree by default.
+1.
What about a way to view allocator memory use? per child totals in
mod_status would be most excellent.
Greg
On 11/11/2011 1:42 PM, Issac Goldstand wrote:
-0
I DO want the EOL, but not until after 2.4 has a couple of GAs, if only
because folks might not update twice.
They've had six years? I'm talking deprecating 2.0, not 2.2,
for 2.4 -or- 2.2. Lots of choices, including putting off any
upgrade.
On Friday, 11 November 2011 20:09:09 Jason Gionta wrote:
While I expect the count to increment by one after each request. It
seems like if there is a time gap between requests (over 10 seconds),
the count gets reset (apr_hash_count = 0).
May it be that your requests simply hit another worker
On 11/11/2011 1:47 PM, André Malo wrote:
* William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Stealing a plan executed by Colm for 1.3, I'd like to propose that
we set a two week window following committers' return-from-ApacheCon
to execute any backports of general interest and apply important
fixes/backports to
Hi,
we were told by pgollucci that there is already a Windows build bot at the
ASF. It would be awesome if someone knowledgable in Windows could work
with the Infra guys to set it up. The mail address is bui...@apache.org
according to Philip.
Cheers,
Stefan
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Greg Ames wrote:
I intend to set MaxMemFree by default.
+1.
What about a way to view allocator memory use? per child totals in
mod_status would be most excellent.
Sure. We should try to put the necessary infrastructure into apr 1.5 and
then support it in mod_status
I noticed in www.apache.org/server-status that there was a worker with
a single connection open, all the others had been gracefully closed.
However, it'd been in that state for an hour.
GDB attached to it, backtrace here:
https://gist.github.com/be22714685f1e370f19e
No really sure why this
2011/11/11 Torsten Förtsch torsten.foert...@gmx.net:
On Friday, 11 November 2011 20:09:09 Jason Gionta wrote:
While I expect the count to increment by one after each request. It
seems like if there is a time gap between requests (over 10 seconds),
the count gets reset (apr_hash_count = 0).
* William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
So isn't it enough to say that The project will choose to publish
further releases only for significant security fixes, or will choose
instead to publish patches for less significant security fixes for
12 months from the date of this final release. From December
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 11/11/2011 1:47 PM, André Malo wrote:
* William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Stealing a plan executed by Colm for 1.3, I'd like to propose that
we set a two week window following committers' return-from-ApacheCon
to
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Paul Querna wrote:
I noticed in www.apache.org/server-status that there was a worker with
a single connection open, all the others had been gracefully closed.
However, it'd been in that state for an hour.
GDB attached to it, backtrace here:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/11/11 Torsten Förtsch torsten.foert...@gmx.net:
On Friday, 11 November 2011 20:09:09 Jason Gionta wrote:
While I expect the count to increment by one after each request. It
seems like if there is a time gap between
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The 2.3.15-beta (prerelease) tarballs are available for download at test:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as 2.3.15-beta BETA and,
with luck, this will be our last beta and the next release in ~2weeks
or
On Nov 11, 2011, at 1:21 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/11/11 Torsten Förtsch torsten.foert...@gmx.net:
On Friday, 11 November 2011 20:09:09 Jason Gionta wrote:
While I expect the count to increment by one after each
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
The 2.3.15-beta (prerelease) tarballs are available for download at test:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these
+1
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
On Nov 11, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The 2.4.x httpd branch was created from the r1200449 point of
trunk… I've tried to backport pretty much all non-apreq patches
from trunk.
I have added version 2.4-HEAD to Bugzilla.
As well as 2.3.15-beta...
S.
--
scte...@apache.org
Stefan,
Which build problem? mod_lua?, I've never seen release blocked on a a
alpha/beta nor do I remember screaming and blocking a release by a
simple problem with a module, libhttpd is a whole different matter, as
that means nothing builds, therefore nothing works. mod_watchdog still
On 11/9/2011 6:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as 2.3.15-beta BETA and,
with luck, this will be our last beta and the next release in ~2weeks
or less will be 2.4.0 GA!!
Vote will last the normal 72 hours...
+1 for beta
On 08.11.2011 15:16, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The 2.3.15-dev (prerelease) tarballs are available for download at test:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as 2.3.15-dev BETA and,
with luck, this will be our last beta and the next release in ~2weeks
or
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
Stefan,
Which build problem? mod_lua?, I've never seen release blocked on a a
Yes, I meant the missing include path.
alpha/beta nor do I remember screaming and blocking a release by a simple
problem with a module, libhttpd is a whole different
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 14:25 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 11/11/2011 1:42 PM, Issac Goldstand wrote:
-0
I DO want the EOL, but not until after 2.4 has a couple of GAs, if only
because folks might not update twice.
They've had six years? I'm talking deprecating 2.0, not 2.2,
On 11.11.2011 13:04, André Malo wrote:
* William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
So isn't it enough to say that The project will choose to publish
further releases only for significant security fixes, or will choose
instead to publish patches for less significant security fixes for
12 months from the date
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I think 4MB could be a reasonable default for MaxMemFree.
Were you considering that in terms of a 64 or 32 bit arch? Guessing
that from alignment and ptr sizes, there will be some impact.
I didn't intend to handle that differently.
We
On 11/11/2011 10:49 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
And as we did with 1.3, we would start a 12 month clock to removing
2.0.x pretty much in its entirety from the live httpd.apache.org site
and /dist/ mirrors (although still available from archive.a.o/dist/).
+1. It's time to say goodbye.
--
hi,
After r1201149, we now lock for lots of things, where in an ideal
case, we shouldn't need it.
I'm toying around with ideas on how to eliminate the need for a mutex at all.
My current 'best' idea I think:
1) Create a new struct, ap_pollset_operation_and_timeout_info_t, which
contains a what
58 matches
Mail list logo
