On 7/8/11 1:23 PM, Brian McCallister bri...@skife.org wrote:
I have not yet had a chance to look into lua-apr (
http://peterodding.com/code/lua/apr/ ) but it might be darned handy
re: mod_lua.
I looked at it and it seems to not be that great of a fit. It uses global
pools all over the place,
On 6/15/11 4:08 PM, Joachim Zobel jzo...@heute-morgen.de wrote:
mod_perl does this pretty good IMHO. The point is auto generation of
usable API wrappers.
FWIW, and this is just my opinion, but I'm not not 100% sure that having a
complete (or near) complete Lua version of the HTTPD (and APR)
On 6/15/11 6:01 PM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
pocore: For base OS portability and memory pooling system.
http://code.google.com/p/pocore/
How does this compare to APR?
libuv: Portable, fast, Network IO. (IOCP programming model, brought to Unix)
https://github.com/joyent/libuv
On 6/15/11 6:26 PM, HyperHacker hyperhac...@gmail.com wrote:
=
I'd been looking forward to mod_lua for a while now expecting it to
work similarly to PHP (handle requests, send output without having to
worry about how the httpd works). Is that not the case?
Brian M. can correct me, but the
On 6/15/11 7:40 PM, Colm MacCárthaigh c...@allcosts.net wrote:
Imagine
that in turn feeding into a set of co-routine filters. That's
fundamentally different - it parallelises content generation, but it's
really really hard to do in C.
Depending on how far you want to push the model, it's not
On 4/15/11 6:11 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 15.04.2011 23:01, schrieb Jeff Trawick:
FastCGI is a way to get us out of all sorts of dark alleys; let's be
sure to keep it in mind as one of the tools to address binary
compatibility issues, PHP-centered or not
but
On 3/14/11 7:51 PM, Brian McCallister bri...@skife.org wrote:
I think the right path for this is to shrink the core mod_lua module
to be the *minimal* set for integration, and pull all the higher level
functionality into a non-core module, which uses the core mod_lua to
hook into the server.
On 3/15/11 10:05 AM, Dan Poirier poir...@pobox.com wrote:
Maybe if people could embed lua in web pages.
FWIW, I don't think the web needs yet another web page generator embedded
inside a web server. We apps should be ran by application servers -
fastcgi, proxy, etc.
But that's just my
On 3/15/11 2:25 PM, Dan Poirier poir...@pobox.com wrote:
I agree too, but the discussion was about whether mod_lua might replace
PHP some day, and I think if that's your goal (worthwhile or not) you'd
have to provide web page embedding.
We never, ever run mod_php, only via fastcgi, anyway.
On 9/14/10 11:02 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
It looks like I need to hack together support for integer comparison
operations,
al la -lt/-gt/-eq, for RewriteCond evaluation.
Eww. FWIW, we axed mod_rewrite mostly and just use Lua now. Once you need
this type of logic,
On 6/8/10 6:34 PM, Sean Conner s...@conman.org wrote:
If your platform is x86, have you considered testing with LuaJIT? It
compiles Lua code directly into x86 code and is a drop-in replacement for
lua (just link against libluajit instead of liblua). The few tests I've
done have been
On 6/8/10 7:21 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
That said, if your server doesn't have work to do, ie
you're just a bit-shifter, then a simple async loop will win hands down.
We also found that even for resource intensive tasks -- like rendering a
template or something similar --
On 6/8/10 8:07 AM, Dan Poirier poir...@pobox.com wrote:
That's a shame. I wonder if another embedded language would do better?
E.g. mod_perl, mod_python? They've both been around for a while. I
wonder why neither has gotten into the server?
Lua is leaps and bounds faster than both of those
On 6/7/10 9:16 AM, Dan Poirier poir...@pobox.com wrote:
Did you profile httpd? I'm wondering if you had a few non-trivial hooks
in lua, if it would be a significant part of the CPU consumption, or
would it be swamped by the rest of the processing that always goes on
for a request?
On 6/6/10 8:03 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
With multi-core architectures, we're finding that humble worker on our
commodity hardware is as fast or faster than our load balancers.
+1
We soon found that the web servers spends more time doing context switches
than actual work.
On 6/4/10 10:37 PM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
The most iteresting thing in this space since VCL was created is the
development of LLVM clang. It seems like if you wanted to build
this these days, that would be where to start, though including an
entire compiler stack does seem both
All of you folks who have to answer user questions, go ahead and ready your
hate mail :)
I've been playing some with Varnish (long story) and lots of people seem to
like it. The config language (VCL) is just a thin wrapper on top of C.
Heck, you can just write C inline.
Also, I do a good bit
On 6/4/10 7:30 PM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
Are you using LuaJIT 2? The performance numbers its putting up seemed
very impressive.
Yes and meh...
--
Brian Akins
On 5/12/10 11:09 AM, Brian McCallister bri...@skife.org wrote:
Ah, but what happens when there are multiple functions for same hook?
We could get into magic naming and scanning of global scope, but that
really turns my stomach.
No need. It's easy. Think about it in lua, not C.
Something
The hook runner itself should just be in lua. Instead of scripts, you write
lua modules. If a lua module has a function with the correct names (ie,
same as hooks) it uses that:
Ie in my module foo
function fixups( r )
Would get called at fixups, etc.
No need for a state per file,
Is there a particular reason why ProxyPreserveHost is per server and not
per dir? We have some unusual configs and I'm wondering what secret
internals I may be breaking by changing that? The code didn't show anything
obvious.
--
Brian Akins
On 2/19/10 6:11 PM, Sander Temme scte...@apache.org wrote:
Aside from satisfying your own
curiosity (which is a perfectly valid reason), why invent another one? Or am
I misreading you?
Mod_lua (and mod_wombat before it) has some serious architectural issues.
We've talked about them on the
On 2/5/10 9:39 AM, Dan Poirier poir...@pobox.com wrote:
. E.g. maybe
today I'd like to see all debug trace from authentication, but tomorrow
just see SSL stuff.
+1
--
Brian Akins
On 1/22/10 2:18 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
What you're probably after are piped logs:
The amount of context switches this can create is almost mind boggling...
--
Brian Akins
On 1/22/10 2:39 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Trying to signal all the processes, all the threads, and all the event
loops to close and reopen a file simultaneously simply isn't feasible or
accurate enough to be useful.
Each process (not thread) has an open filehandle with
On 11/10/09 6:20 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to see a few network threads multiplexing all the writing
to clients.
That's what I meant. I just didn't state it properly.
Then take all of *that*, and spread it across several processes for
solid uptime, with a master
On 11/9/09 3:08 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
2) If you have 10,000 client connections, and some number of sockets
in the system ready for read/write... how do you quickly determine
*which* buckets to poll to get those sockets processed? You don't want
to poll idle
On 11/10/09 1:56 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
But some buckets might be performing gzip or SSL encryption. That
consumes CPU within the network thread.
You could just run x times CPU cores number of network threads. You can't
use more than 100% of a CPU anyway.
The model that some
On 11/9/09 12:32 AM, Brian McCallister bri...@skife.org wrote:
A 3.0, a fundamental architectural shift, would be interesting to
discuss, I am not sure there is a ton of value in it, though, to be
honest.
So I should continue to investigate nginx? ;)
FWIW, nginx delivers on its performance
On 11/9/09 12:52 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
This gives us the option of prefork reliability, and event driven speed,
as required by the admin.
I think if we try to do both, we will wind up with the worst of both worlds.
(Or is it worse??) Blocking/buggy modules should be ran
On 11/9/09 1:18 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
and we know
from the same period of experience from others that a pure event driven
model is useful for shipping static data and not much further.
It works really well for proxy.
--
Brian Akins
On 11/9/09 1:36 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
It works really well for proxy.
Aka static data :)
Nah, we proxy to fastcgi php stuff, http java stuff, some horrid HTTP perl
stuff, etc (Full disclosure, I wrote the horrid perl stuff.)
--
Brian Akins
On 11/9/09 1:40 PM, Brian Akins brian.ak...@turner.com wrote:
On 11/9/09 1:36 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
It works really well for proxy.
Aka static data :)
Nah, we proxy to fastcgi php stuff, http java stuff, some horrid HTTP perl
stuff, etc (Full disclosure, I wrote
On 11/9/09 2:06 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
These issues are already solved by moving to a Serf core. It is fully
asynchronous.
Okay that's one convert, any others? ;)
That's what Paul and I discussed a lot last week.
My ideal httpd 3.0 is:
Libev + serf + lua
--
Brian Akins
On 11/5/09 4:30 PM, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote:
Thoughts?
Still digesting, but generally +1 to the entire post.
--
Brian Akins
So, after several conversations at Apachecon and on the list, we still have
no real vision of how we want to move ahead with httpd 3.0. Or, if we
do, it's not communicated very well.
Some have suggested we just create a new server project. Others want to keep
hacking away at the current code
On 10/30/09 1:29 PM, Albert Lash albert.l...@docunext.com wrote:
But in the end, it is awesome for containing memory leaks and
automatically re-spawning fastcgi processes.
An external process-manager can do the same.
My point was do we really want/need this complexity inside httpd?
Also, the
With all the discussion of mod_fcgid lately (I admit, I did not read all the
threads, so forgive me if we already discussed this), I was wondering if a
different approach would be better.
I know at one time there was work on a mod_proxy_fastcgi. The current trend
in other webservers seems to do
On 10/29/09 9:50 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
There has been some interest expressed on this list from the mod_fcgid
user community to manage processes differently (e.g., independent of
load); in general, I'd like to see the proxy+process mgr solution
support requirements that
Did we ever decide what to do about this?
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200801.mbox/%3CC3C353B8.A
60a1%25brian.ak...@turner.com%3e
Did we come up with another solution?
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
On 9/15/09 3:18 PM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
I would prefer to just put it into the log file like Dan did.. not
everyone uses apachectl :)
+1
--
Brian Akins
On 8/26/09 3:20 PM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
I would write little lua scriptlets that map user agents to two
buckets: supports gzip, doesnt support gzip. store the thing in
mod_cache only twice, instead of once for every user agent.
We do the same basic thing. We are moving
On 8/25/09 8:47 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I'd like to float that idea again, before I spend any more
time on it...
+1
I've been, umm, struggling with some proxy stuff recently and it's annoying
that 2.2.x and trunk are so different.
One idea:
Can we replace the void
Patches welcome.
On 8/23/09 11:58 PM, tim robertson tim...@email.com wrote:
. Events will
help Apache server handle lots of concurrent connections because currently
Apache cannot handle 10,000 concurrent connections on a low end single core
server without Apache crashing or running very
I found something in proxy and was wondering if it was intentional:
In proxy_balancer, we check the nonce param and clear the params if
incorrect or missing, however, then you can't view it in xml unless you
include the nonce, because the xml param is no longer available.
I was trying to get one
On 7/28/09 1:35 PM, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
I have backported r791454 to 2.2.3 in Debian 4.0 and have received a
report [1] about segfaults with mod_deflate and mod_php (5.2.0).
Isn't php only officially supported via fastcgi?
--
Brian Akins
I haven't looked at the code, but +1 for the idea. We had a hack that did
something somewhat similar, but it was gross and in 2.0 - we never used it
in prod.
Is the proxy-timeout for the entire request to be returned, the first byte,
or just an i/o timeout?
--
Brian Akins
This is how I envisioned the async stuff working.
-Async event thread is used only for input/output of httpd to/from network*
-After we read the headers, we pass the request/connection to the worker
threads. Each request is sticky to a thread. Request stuff may block,
etc, so this thread pool
On 7/7/09 1:02 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Ideally any async implementation should be 100% async end to end. I
don't believe that its necessary though for a single request to be
handled by more than one thread.
True. However, what about things that may be process intensive.
On 7/2/09 8:37 AM, Nick Kew n...@webthing.com wrote:
Not everyone who's concerned right now about slowloris has
iptables at their disposal.
Also, not everyone has access to the real IP very early in the connection
phase. Some load balancers add the IP as a header. Generally speaking,
most
On 6/22/09 10:40 PM, Weibin Yao nbubi...@gmail.com wrote:
I have an idea to mitigate the problem: put the Nginx as a reverse proxy
server in the front of apache.
Or a device that effectively acts as such.
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
On 6/23/09 12:48 AM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
Mitagation is the wrong approach.
We all know our architecture is wrong.
Another heretical suggestion:
Lighttpd and nginx are both release under BSD-like licenses.
Hear me out.
I've actually been thinking how possible would it be to
On 6/18/09 12:57 PM, Bob Ionescu bobsie...@googlemail.com wrote:
DefaultMapping /index.php
AddHandler php_handler .php
Of course, though, php is only supported in fastcgi mode now.
Unrelated to the discussion, but, yes, I will keep saying this over and over
again until I quit seeing
On 6/10/09 8:52 AM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
Or something like that that's sufficiently like what we have now to be easy to
learn, but sufficiently different to be harder to get wrong, and a whole heck
of a lot easier to do dynamic vhosts.
I think Lua (or whatever) could include
On 6/10/09 10:21 AM, Dan Poirier poir...@pobox.com wrote:
That sounds a whole lot like using the config as a runtime.
I'm not sure I follow that. I do like that the config would still look
a lot like it does now, only more flexible.
Even if we kept the same general syntax as now, if we
On 6/5/09 11:31 PM, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote:
This last example wasn't even related to driving configuration. It was
in practice an actual handler hook implementation for request
processing, not configuration phases.
The way I see it, we have artificially separated
On 6/9/09 7:50 AM, Peter Wang ptr.w...@gmail.com wrote:
8000 may be very specific on my server, i wonder
where can i tuning such a limit.
Yes 8000 is special in the apache response streaming.
Are you using the deprecated mod_php or the supported fastcgi for php?
--
Brian Akins
Chief
On 6/3/09 7:50 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com
wrote:
1. There are many and large and complex configurations out in the world.
Which is exactly why I want/need a better way to do them. I'm currently
using a template system to generate them. However I wind up with
On 6/4/09 7:51 AM, Dan Poirier poir...@pobox.com wrote:
and having to write a program to
implement mod_rewrite or a virtual host yourself.
Something like this would be trivial to do:
if prefix_match(r.uri, /foo/) then
return do_redirect(r, http://somewhere.else/;)
end
Okay, not a
On 6/4/09 8:14 AM, Jorge Schrauwen jorge.schrau...@gmail.com wrote:
Like Graham mentioned mod_macro can be of some use here. however since
I'm looping in perl I may as well push the 4 lines needed to httpd
instead of a one line macro replacemen.
Okay, I'm not explaining my self well. I'm
Some ramblings from playing with other servers, particularly varnish and
lighttpd. It would be interesting if we ditched the current configuration
system and just used lua. I know this has been said before, but I've been
doing a bit of playing with mod_lua and I think it it actually doable. We
On 6/3/09 2:09 PM, Joachim Zobel jzo...@heute-morgen.de wrote:
This does IMHO not address any of the problems users usually have and
that are mainly due to a lack of validation.
First of all, I don't really care about normal users, to be honest. Admit
it, I'm not the only one. However, I do
On 6/3/09 2:45 PM, Jorge Schrauwen jorge.schrau...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to admit lua would be more flexible but I think most server
admins have atleast come into contact with XML... while not
necessarily the case with lua.
XML with conditionals. Please, make it stop...
I think we are
Has anyone looked at VCL that varnish uses? That and some playing with
lighttpd's mod_magnet is what rekindled my interest:
http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/Introduction
http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/VCLExamples
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media
On Linux, I've used oprofile to help with my module development.
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
OT, but will you contribute that to mod_lua ? :)
Based on mod_memcache and mod_wombat . For demonstration only as this uses
our hacked version, but you get the idea how simple this was. Build it in
lua dir like /usr/lib/lua/5.1/apach2/memcache.so
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
On 3/31/09 10:18 AM, Bertrand Mansion bmans...@mamasam.net wrote:
Reading the comments in your code, it seems that mod_lua could benefit
from a better error reporting ?
Perhaps. Or I just needed to actually add error checking Right now I
rely on the lua side to sanity check stuff.
--
On 1/28/09 1:25 AM, Paras Fadte plf...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Which tool is the most suitable for profiling Apache ? gprof ? Oprofile ?
I've used oprofile.
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
On 1/11/09 10:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
[ ] Accept mod_fcgid into httpd
+1
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
Anyone know anything about status of this?
http://code.google.com/p/modmemcache/
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
Seems like your own module would be small and straight forward.
There is a patch floating around for mod_setenvif that adds a filter for it
to act on response headers. That may could be used, depending on the order
things happen. I'd still like this patch to be committed, I can resubmit,
if you
On 10/30/08 12:48 PM, Manik Taneja [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So it seems that there is a slow-leak perhaps we might be hitting the
problem that has been described in the following post.
http://www.nabble.com/apr-pools---memory-leaks-td19766166.html
FWIW, we always run with
One of the things I've noticed on a practical level, is that forked children
in worker wind up being linearized within themselves to some extent.
Think of how the buffered logs work in mod_log_config (one buffer protected
by a mutex). (I can't think of the correct term for it right now. Basically
On 10/29/08 3:40 PM, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, maybe that is a good thing, since then they would be ported
forward and work on win32 too.
Can you delete open files in win32 yet?? If not, most of my stuff will not
port...
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner
On 10/18/08 4:28 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also consider today that a server on broadband can easily spew 1gb/sec
bandwidth
at the client. If this is composed content (or proxied, etc, but not
sendfiled)
it would make sense to allow multiple buffer pages and/or
On 10/20/08 1:19 PM, Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This will make some interesting templating options possible, and will
probably make lives easier for people doing mass hosting.
Seems like a place to get a lot of bug reports as well.
I choose to just use a real template system to
On 10/15/08 6:56 PM, Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously, if the loop comes round more than once, then the client comes
into play. This definitely needs to be fixed, it is a big performance issue.
Could a more general purpose optimization be done? I was thinking of a
generic
On 10/7/08 8:49 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure sounds like this is a re-initialization of mysql, with apr and php
fighting for the honors.
I thought the official support of php was fastcgi only in httpd 2.2
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital
On 10/8/08 2:15 PM, Oden Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vhosting does not work very well with apache, without band-aids like fastcgi
etc. that's a shame.
There is a rather lengthy list of reasons why mod_php doesn't work
correctly. AFAIK, the official word has been to use fast-cgi for
On 10/8/08 4:06 PM, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think the approach you are suggesting will work.
I would suggest duplicating the workers at startup, enable/disable in
each balancer to 'move' them.
+1.
Do graceful restarts work correctly with the stock load balancer?
This is getting of topic in dev, but...
On 10/8/08 4:17 PM, Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I've migrated all of my webservers to a mixture of Lighttpd and Nginx,
Why? The apache is bloated and slow argument is just plain incorrect.
(FWIW, I have nothing against eitehr of
On 9/30/08 1:15 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
should we look
at something closer to ap_mpm_query (ap_core_query?) and start adding it a
whole lot of stuff?
+1
Something to ponder; injecting this as-is for 2.2.10 seems rushed.
+1
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations
On 9/25/08 9:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Couple of points, API fn name sucks, can it be ap_request_config_test(r,feat)?
Sure.
Always request-rec based, there should be no need for server rec (two args
are faster than 3).
True.
About your other idea, it's a
Got tired of having to set core_private for one bit of info. How does this
look?
Index: server/request.c
===
--- server/request.c(revision 699033)
+++ server/request.c(working copy)
@@ -1907,3 +1907,14 @@
return
On 9/21/08 2:17 AM, Bing Swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But an optimal
network i/o model needs a layer that maps a *request* to a thread, so that a
worker thread (or process) will not have to be tied up entirely with a
single connection during the whole life time of the connection. Instead, a
Have you tried mod_disk_cache with the cachroot in /dev/shm? Mod_mem_cache,
it seems, is negleted in comparison to the disk one. Using /dev/shm is
basically putting the cache in shared emmory.
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
On 9/4/08 4:22 AM, Bing Swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you have super-optimized
hardware and system?
Nope, standard off the shelf systems.
So I wonder perhaps next time you guys may bother to take time to also run
Nginx on your platform and tell us how it performs against your httpd
On 9/4/08 2:54 AM, steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Filling gigE and requests/sec aren't targets that concern me as a
user. They sound like nice beanchmarks though...
To some folks, filling a gigE is important. FWIW, I ran some tests
yesterday with about 50K ISDN (384K) speed clients and httpd
On 9/1/08 8:11 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 31, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Bing Swen wrote:
To my knowledge, the one thread per connection network i/o model
is a
suboptimal use
threads vs. events is certainly not, imo, a finalized debate
yet with a known winner or
On 9/2/08 1:02 PM, bing swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a little different viewpoint. According to some recent test reports
comparing Apache 2.2 and Nginx 0.6/0.7 (from a blog website admin.), Apache
could do as well as Nginx when there are a few connections each of which
carries many
On 9/2/08 3:15 PM, bing swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems the test (done by another guy) indeed used an everything plus the
kitchen sink default Apache httpd at first, but then dropping off 3/4 of
all of the default modules (maybe not that much, but only for serving
static pages) seemed
On 8/28/08 8:45 PM, Jess Holle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Possible solutions include:
Having an option to have a background thread ping the backends rather than
allowing normal requests to do so.
One way to possibly do this is to have a single health checking that's in
the parent that can
On 8/4/08 3:41 PM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*grin*
I've always wondered what usefulness
ap_run_monitor(p)
FWIW, we use the monitor hook all the time... Most of our stuff uses some
shared memory and the monitor hook in parent, but I have considered hacking
something
On 8/4/08 12:59 PM, Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mod_balancer decaying (averaging) the transferred statistics,
so that node-up/recovery doesn't consume all the load.
mod_proxy_ajp sending ping/pong at regular intervals (detecting
node failure before
On 7/23/08 2:51 PM, rhiren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can I stop the processing of that request
on the server, so that it does not spend any more time on the document
content processing and frees up the CPU and memory.
Check r-aborted
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital
On 6/19/08 5:35 PM, Niklas Edmundsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian: I remember you talking about some in-house modifications using
DBM or something to track accesses to cached data and using it to find
candidates to remove. Care to share?
On every cache store, we write out to a pipe some
Okay, started looking at mod_cache and had a question about the way it is
handling providers.
We call ap_cache_get_providers which seems to do a lot of work that we could
probably do at config time rather than run time. Any reason why providers
can't be attached to uri's at config time and avoid
On 6/2/08 2:02 PM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review STATUS and prepare for tarball testing in a coupla
days!
FWIW, if my vote counts:
*htpasswd: Fix salt generation weakness. PR 31440 +1
* mod_unique_id: Convert request time to seconds before before storing it in
+1
--
How we handle purge:
-Our cache is only disk based, so it is somewhat easier.
-We have a hook that gets called after each cache store - ie, after we write
a vary meta file, after we write a real meta file, after a datafile write
(on close).
-We also have a cache_get_info function that is exported
FWIW, we already use apreq for other stuff anyway. Also, it does a lot of
useful stuff that can be exposed via mod_wombat
One of my top things I want is a way to generically register and call
some lua code that takes advantage of resource pools, caching, etc.
No offense to Brian M, but I found
1 - 100 of 218 matches
Mail list logo
