On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Roy T. Fielding <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 20, 2011, at 2:48 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> On 6/20/2011 4:36 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: >>> On Monday 20 June 2011, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>>> On Jun 20, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: >>>>> On Monday 20 June 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2011 9:07 AM, Greg Ames wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Stefan Fritsch <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Speaking about config options, I think that MaxClients >>>>>>> should be renamed to MaxWorkers, because it limits the >>>>>>> number of worker threads, not the number of clients. As >>>>>>> with the MaxRequestsPerChild -> MaxConnectionsPerChild >>>>>>> rename, we would still accept the old name with a warning. >>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1. That's more accurate for sure, and more important when you >>>>>>> loose the 1:1 thread:connection ratio. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we call this MaxRequestWorkers, now that we have different >>>>>> sorts of workers living in the same process? >>>>> >>>>> Good point. Committed as r1137744 >>>> >>>> That kind of last-minute change is going to kill people trying to >>>> upgrade from 2.2 to 2.4 with a shared config. We should make >>>> MaxRequestWorkers an alias for MaxClients in a released 2.2.x >>> >>> I think you missed that MaxClients still works in 2.4 (albeit with a >>> warning on startup). So I don't think it's such a big deal. >> >> Perhaps we should lower the severity from warning to info? Not every >> admin needs constant reminders while they are running 2.2 and 2.4 from >> a single config. > > My point wasn't the warning, actually, but rather the fact that a config > that uses MaxRequestWorkers (instead of MaxClients) will abort an instance > of httpd 2.2.x. Hence, a person upgrading to 2.4.x will get tripped up > if they try to do so incrementally with shared config files across > many web servers, unless they happen to notice that this change is > merely cosmetic and they keep MaxClients instead. > > For a trivial improvement like this, we should make it easier on admins > by backporting the alias to 2.2.x (even if we do not use it on 2.2.x). > > ....Roy
Many (most?) admins will be encountering other one-way changes (e.g., AcceptMutex,SSLMutex -> Mutex). Using one config for both 2.2.x and 2.4.x is going to be an IfVersion exercise. I think they'd be better served with an IfVersion cheatsheet at the bottom of http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrading.html than with addressing a subset of changes by adding compatibility code to 2.2.x.
