On 31.03.19 00:06, Sven Hartge wrote:
> On 25.03.19 20:25, Sven Hartge wrote:
>> On 24.03.19 02:02, Sven Hartge wrote:
>>
>>> So far, so good. I have your packages running on the main webmail server
>>> and the main web server for my university and so far everything is fine,
>>> while default
On 25.03.19 20:25, Sven Hartge wrote:
> On 24.03.19 02:02, Sven Hartge wrote:
>
>> So far, so good. I have your packages running on the main webmail server
>> and the main web server for my university and so far everything is fine,
>> while default packages and the test1 packages with mpm_event
On 3/25/19 8:25 PM, Sven Hartge wrote:
> On 24.03.19 02:02, Sven Hartge wrote:
>
>> So far, so good. I have your packages running on the main webmail server
>> and the main web server for my university and so far everything is fine,
>> while default packages and the test1 packages with mpm_event
On 24.03.19 02:02, Sven Hartge wrote:
> So far, so good. I have your packages running on the main webmail server
> and the main web server for my university and so far everything is fine,
> while default packages and the test1 packages with mpm_event would
> normally start showing the symptoms
On 22.03.19 21:19, Sven Hartge wrote:
> On 22.03.19 21:14, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>
>> Second try with different approach is at
>>
>> https://people.debian.org/~sf/apache2-mpm-event-902493/2.4.25-3+deb9u7~test2/
>>
>> I have backported mpm_event from 2.4.28 and reverted one commit that was
>>
On 22.03.19 21:14, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> Second try with different approach is at
>
> https://people.debian.org/~sf/apache2-mpm-event-902493/2.4.25-3+deb9u7~test2/
>
> I have backported mpm_event from 2.4.28 and reverted one commit that was
> incompatible with 2.4.25. This was quite painless
On Monday, 11 March 2019 09:35:45 CET Sven Hartge wrote:
> This breaks quite fast, resulting in apache2 processes at 100% CPU, doing
> nothing but:
Thanks for the quick feed-back.
Second try with different approach is at
Um 08:56 Uhr am 11.03.19 schrieb Sven Hartge:
> I am going to test these package on the systems which have shown to be
> hit by regularly this problem here, so I am confident I will be able to
> report within two weeks if there have been any problems and if your
> change did indeed fix the
On 10.03.19 12:51, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> I am not comfortable with switching to mpm_worker, either, since this would
> be
> a significant behavior change.
>
> I have however tried a backport of the patch referenced in the upstream bug
> report and put a build here:
>
>
Hi,
I am not comfortable with switching to mpm_worker, either, since this would be
a significant behavior change.
I have however tried a backport of the patch referenced in the upstream bug
report and put a build here:
On Tuesday, 12 February 2019 17:44:39 CET Gedalya wrote:
> On 2/13/19 12:38 AM, Jan Wagner wrote:
> > backports is not meant for fixing things. beside that it would require
> > all rebuilding most of the additional apache modules not shiped by the
> > apache2 source package.
>
> So we're back to
On 2/13/19 12:54 AM, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Maybe adding the Release to the first sentence to convey that this is
> only a problem for Stretch and not Buster
Yea.
Well, since mpm_event is still the default in buster :-)
--->8---
By default, Apache 2.4 as provided by Debian uses mpm_event
On 12.02.19 17:51, Gedalya wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:28:00 +0100 Sven Hartge wrote:
>>
>> Language of course needs a bit of refining from my German-English.
>>
>
>
> Nothing atrocious, really, but I was able to come up with something a bit
> more concise.
>
>
> --->8---
> By
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:28:00 +0100 Sven Hartge wrote:
>
> Language of course needs a bit of refining from my German-English.
>
Nothing atrocious, really, but I was able to come up with something a bit more
concise.
--->8---
By default, Apache 2.4 as provided by Debian uses mpm_event
Am 12.02.19 um 17:44 schrieb Gedalya:
> On 2/13/19 12:38 AM, Jan Wagner wrote:
>> backports is not meant for fixing things. beside that it would require
>> all rebuilding most of the additional apache modules not shiped by the
>> apache2 source package.
> So we're back to doing nothing at all?
On 2/13/19 12:38 AM, Jan Wagner wrote:
> backports is not meant for fixing things. beside that it would require
> all rebuilding most of the additional apache modules not shiped by the
> apache2 source package.
So we're back to doing nothing at all?
I'm not at all advocating backports as a
Am 12.02.19 um 17:28 schrieb Gedalya:
> So how about backporting it to stretch-backports? Isn't that what the
> backports section is for?
backports is not meant for fixing things. beside that it would require
all rebuilding most of the additional apache modules not shiped by the
apache2 source
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 14:36:11 +0100 (CET) Stefan Fritsch
wrote:
> If we did a backport, rhe risk of introducing regressions would be quite high.
So how about backporting it to stretch-backports? Isn't that what the backports
section is for?
It would be then available to those who have
On 11.02.19 13:36, Jan Wagner wrote:
> Am 11.02.19 um 13:12 schrieb Sven Hartge:
>>> Okay ... here is an area where you can push forward. What about
>>> providing documentation patches?
>> Sure. What kind of documentation. NEWS.Debian?
> where would you expect such a documentation, as you
On 11.02.19 11:29, Jan Wagner wrote:
> Okay ... here is an area where you can push forward. What about
> providing documentation patches?
Sure. What kind of documentation. NEWS.Debian?
Grüße,
Sven.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Am 11.02.19 um 10:46 schrieb Sven Hartge:
> But this bug has been encountered frequently enough (and is difficult to
> spot, if you don't exactly know what to search for) and with increasing
Beeing there. Searched >3 weeks before I thought it would be a idea to
switch the mpm.
> adoption of SSL
On 11.02.19 10:29, Jan Wagner wrote:
> Am 11.02.19 um 09:51 schrieb Sven Hartge:
>> Also I am a bit disappointed by you invoking the "the next release is
>> near" argument. Most of my servers for example won't get Buster until
>> early to mid 2020 and I think many of others are in the same boat.
Hi Sven,
Am 11.02.19 um 09:51 schrieb Sven Hartge:
> Also I am a bit disappointed by you invoking the "the next release is
> near" argument. Most of my servers for example won't get Buster until
> early to mid 2020 and I think many of others are in the same boat.
just to point this out. You
On 10.02.19 14:36, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> Between 2.4.25 and the fix for this issue, there were some intrusive
> changes in mpm_evnt. If we did a backport, rhe risk of introducing
> regressions would be quite high. Therefore, and because the next Debian
> stable release is quite near, I don't
Between 2.4.25 and the fix for this issue, there were some intrusive
changes in mpm_evnt. If we did a backport, rhe risk of introducing
regressions would be quite high. Therefore, and because the next Debian
stable release is quite near, I don't think it makes sense to backport the
fix.
I've had seemingly the same issue. After several weeks of running a backported
apache2 2.4.37-1 the issues are gone.
Previously it was happening several times every day, with the outage lasting
sometimes 10 minutes or so.
This was very difficult to troubleshoot, as nothing is logged, and it
On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 10:39:51 +0200 Martijn Grendelman
wrote:
> Some of our Debian Stretch based Apache webservers suffer from
> intermittent connection timeouts.
>
> We have been trying to pin down the problem for a while, and eventually,
> we found this bug report in Apache's Bugzilla, that
27 matches
Mail list logo
