From: "Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 7:30 AM
> Ok, now I have a repro recipe that doesn't require
> mod_dav and mod_dav_svn.
The last commit should have fixed the problem (and does with
your mod_ssl example.) Could you go back and check mod_dav
with mod
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 5:30 AM
> > That is complete BS. We have a long standing tradition of NOT making
> > commits just to follow the code style. There is no need for a vote, because
> > this has been discussed to death and formatting on
From: "Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 7:30 AM
> Ok, now I have a repro recipe that doesn't require
> mod_dav and mod_dav_svn.
Well, I took the easy way out, tried Doug's (using VirtualHost *)
and failed. Probably would have worked if I tried his _exact_
> That is complete BS. We have a long standing tradition of NOT making
> commits just to follow the code style. There is no need for a vote, because
> this has been discussed to death and formatting only commits have been
> vetoed in the past in every thread that they come up in. Review the arc
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, RCHAPACH Rochester wrote:
> Yes, FD_SETSIZE is defined in sys/types.h on UNIX flavored
> systems. If you set it to a high enough value
> (i.e. #DEFINE FD_SETSIZE 65535 ) before sys/types.h gets included,
> it will override the value set in sys/types.h.
this isn't portable.
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Ian Morgan wrote:
> RecvTimeout 5
>
> This will cause any incoming request to timeout if not completed within 5
> seconds. This will cause the above "null" connections to timeout very
> quickly, thereby significantly reducing the number of wasted waiting server
> instances.
yeah i considered that, but i don't think rr->filename can be NULL in
1.3... 'cause i don't think you can get rr->status == OK with a NULL
filename...
the only calls to ap_translate_name() which succeed are followed by
ap_directory_walk() which tests for a NULL filename and sets it to a copy
of t
On Thursday 20 September 2001 08:12 pm, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 05:48:45PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:18:55AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > Basically, the above code processes the cleanups in batches. Everything
> > that was initially registere
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 05:48:45PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:18:55AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> >...
> > Does this fix it for you? All testmem tests passed for me and your code
> > above properly flushes "Cleanup" to the file.
> >
> > (Someone needs to check my work
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> this bug has probably been here forever... i can't imagine any way to
> exploit it.
Jeff fixed the same bug in 2.0 about a month ago. His fix was very
similar to yours, though it did one extra check. Here's the commit
message.
--Cliff
--
On Thursday 20 September 2001 05:48 pm, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:18:55AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> >...
> > Does this fix it for you? All testmem tests passed for me and your code
> > above properly flushes "Cleanup" to the file.
> >
> > (Someone needs to check my work on
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, dean gaudet wrote:
> hrm, is the segfault described below a known bug? (i haven't tried it...)
>
> -dean
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Jeff Moe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Serous TUX 2.4.9-J5 problem
>
> Apache 1.3.20 (and
On Thursday 20 September 2001 05:48 pm, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:18:55AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> >...
> > Does this fix it for you? All testmem tests passed for me and your code
> > above properly flushes "Cleanup" to the file.
> >
> > (Someone needs to check my work on
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:02:58AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 September 2001 02:21 pm, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> > They are not strictly LIFO. You can remove a cleanup and insert a new one
> > at any time. Let's say that the cleanup list looked like:
> >
> > cleanups: A
> >
> >
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:18:55AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>...
> Does this fix it for you? All testmem tests passed for me and your code
> above properly flushes "Cleanup" to the file.
>
> (Someone needs to check my work on run_child_cleanups() and make sure
> that the popping is necessary.
Also submitted as PR#8374.
Summary:
Default Apache distributions (as of 1.3.20) have only a single "Timeout"
directive that controls how long data transmissions and receptions should
wait before timing out.
A Denial of Service (DoS) attack has been hitting many servers that takes
advantage of th
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 01:20:05PM -0700, Danek Duvall wrote:
> Do you know why Nick is using the C++ compiler (CC) instead of the C
> compiler (c)? Apache builds just fine under Solaris 8 and 9 with the Forte
> 6.0 C compiler, but gives the same errors that Nick gets if I use CC
> instead.
>
>
Do you know why Nick is using the C++ compiler (CC) instead of the C
compiler (c)? Apache builds just fine under Solaris 8 and 9 with the Forte
6.0 C compiler, but gives the same errors that Nick gets if I use CC
instead.
I dunno if that's supposed to work, but he might try g++ and see if that
g
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > I think we should also rename MaxClients to MaxWorkers.
>
> I dislike this. MaxClients still makes sense IMHO. It is the
> maximum number
> of clients allowed at one time. MaxWorkers is the maximum number
> of thi
On Thursday 20 September 2001 12:10 pm, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Now for something completely different... I am just throwing out some
> stream of consciencness thoughts.
>
> Definition - "Server" is a "process". Could replace all occurences of
> "Server" below with "Process" or "Child". No explicit
On Thursday 20 September 2001 12:24 pm, Farag, Hany M (Hany) wrote:
> Hi,
> We read this in the STATUS file of 2.0.24:
>
> "There is a bug in how we sort some hooks, at least the pre-config
> hook. The first time we call the hooks, they are in the correct
> order, but the second time, we don't so
Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
> Definition - "Server" is a "process".
As before, I harbour a *very* strong dislike for using
the word 'server' to refer to anything other than the global
HTTP-handling-thing managed by apachectl. It just confuses
the issue.
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedwe
On Thursday 20 September 2001 11:41 am, Joshua Slive wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > This last one is inconsistent with your other changes. In the
> > threaded MPM, a 'Server' by
> > your defn is a thread. MaxRequestsPerChild is use
On Thursday 20 September 2001 11:35 am, Sander Temme wrote:
> on 9/20/01 10:19 AM, Joshua Slive at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The last one I'm not sure of, because I don't know whether this is
> > actually measured per thread or per process. Perhaps it should be
> > MaxRequestsPerProcess.
>
> O
Hi,
We read this in the STATUS file of 2.0.24:
"There is a bug in how we sort some hooks, at least the pre-config
hook. The first time we call the hooks, they are in the correct
order, but the second time, we don't sort them correctly. Currently,
the modules/http/config.m4 file has been rename
Now for something completely different... I am just throwing out some stream of
consciencness thoughts.
Definition - "Server" is a "process". Could replace all occurences of "Server" below
with
"Process" or "Child". No explicit use of a term equivakent to "the thing that handles a
request".
Sta
From: "sterling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 1:50 PM
> Did this get dropped??
>
> I believe this functionality is a requirement. If anyone wants to use
> auth_dbm with apr_dbm, there is currently no reliable way to generate the
> userdatabase for the dbm their apr is
Just an FYI... I was an advocate of pretty much your earlier suggestion (the thing that
handles a request is a 'server'). That was shot down (forget by who). I actually prefer
'server'. FWIW :-)
Bill
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > This las
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> This last one is inconsistent with your other changes. In the
> threaded MPM, a 'Server' by
> your defn is a thread. MaxRequestsPerChild is used to limit the
> number of requests a
> 'process' serves before going a
On Thursday 20 September 2001 11:24 am, Farag, Hany M (Hany) wrote:
Run it in a debugger with the -X command line option.
Ryan
> Hi,
> I'm trying to debug Apache 2.0, I changed the log level in the httpd.conf
> file to debug, also i used the ap_log_rerror(,) in my code to see the
> values a
On Thursday 20 September 2001 11:14 am, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> This last one is inconsistent with your other changes. In the threaded
> MPM, a 'Server' by your defn is a thread. MaxRequestsPerChild is used to
> limit the number of requests a 'process' serves before going away.
>
> In past discuss
Months-old misfiled mail.. not acked.
- Forwarded message from Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: OpenBSD + Apache as heavy loaded webserver and
the cgi problem]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 04:2
on 9/20/01 10:19 AM, Joshua Slive at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The last one I'm not sure of, because I don't know whether this is actually
> measured per thread or per process. Perhaps it should be
> MaxRequestsPerProcess.
Or MaxConnectionsPerProcess, as we count multiple KeepAlive requests as
On Thursday 20 September 2001 10:53 am, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:51:16AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > This has been discussed a lot on list, but we never really come to a
> > conclusion. I would suggest that we just change the names, and let the
> > flames fall where they
Hi,
I'm trying to debug Apache 2.0, I changed the log level in the httpd.conf
file to debug, also i used the ap_log_rerror(,) in my code to see the
values and other debuging info but cann't see any thing just the evil seg
fault message.
Is there any other method i can use.
Thanks
Hany
-O
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:27:35PM -0700, Jon Travis wrote:
> BZzzzt. The attached code registers a cleanup from within a cleanup, and
> does so 'correctly'. See the program attached at the bottom, which behaves
> incorrectly. It is simple code, but not knowing that a given
> function register
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> >
> > -StartServers 3
> > -MaxClients 8
> > -MinSpareThreads 5
> > +StartServers 2
> > +MaxClients 150
> > +MinSpareThreads 25
> > MaxSpareThreads 75
> > Threa
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I like the idea of changing StartServers to StartProcesses, and Min/Max
> SpareThreads to Min/Max SpareServers. We do not want to change
> MaxRequestsPerChild though, because we are still talking about the maximum
>
From: "Jeff Trawick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 12:38 PM
> Currently, when the map-to-storage handler for TRACE returns DONE, the
> caller -- ap_process_request_internal() -- catches that and returns
> OK to its caller -- ap_process_request(). But ap_process_request(
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:51:16AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> This has been discussed a lot on list, but we never really come to a conclusion.
> I would suggest that we just change the names, and let the flames fall where
> they may.
>
> I like the idea of changing StartServers to StartProcesses,
On Thursday 20 September 2001 10:44 am, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 01:19:39PM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > 2. Naming:
> > I think we should define Server="thing capable of serving requests" and
> > completely get rid of "Child" which is ambiguous. Then we can change
> > Mi
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 01:19:39PM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> >
> > -StartServers 3
> > -MaxClients 8
> > -MinSpareThreads 5
> > +StartServers 2
> > +MaxClients 150
Currently, when the map-to-storage handler for TRACE returns DONE, the
caller -- ap_process_request_internal() -- catches that and returns
OK to its caller -- ap_process_request(). But ap_process_request(),
seeing OK, tries to run a handler. It needs to skip that if the
request was completed in
> -Original Message-
> From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> -StartServers 3
> -MaxClients 8
> -MinSpareThreads 5
> +StartServers 2
> +MaxClients 150
> +MinSpareThreads 25
> MaxSpareThreads 75
> ThreadsPerChild 25
> Ma
Here's the config update I promised. As I mentioned earlier, this
should bring the behavior of the worker MPM in line with prefork
and the common definitions of these directives.
These defaults are of course not set in stone. If anyone has a better
idea how to get the best results from some defau
On Thu, 2001-09-20 at 02:05, Graham Leggett wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Added New Option 'HTTPProxyOverrideReturnedErrors' which lets the
> server override
> > the error pages returned from the proxied server and replace them
> with the standard
> > server error handling on the
I've been told by numerous people that MaxClients is defined as the
Maximum number of concurrent connections that the server is allowed
to handle. This patch makes the worker MPM to match that definition.
1) At the pre_config stage, it traverses the config tree and makes sure
that ThreadsPerChi
Sascha Schumann wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > At 11:33 AM -0300 9/20/01, Daniel Abad wrote:
> > >Is it really a problem??? Or just warning?
> > >
> > >[Thu Sep 20 00:28:53 2001] [error] server reached MaxClients setting,
> > >consider raising the MaxClients setting
>
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:33:10AM -0300, Daniel Abad wrote:
> Is it really a problem??? Or just warning?
>
> [Thu Sep 20 00:28:53 2001] [error] server reached MaxClients setting,
> consider raising the MaxClients setting
What MPM are you using (or are you using 1.3)?
-aaron
See what happens if it increased..
[Thu Sep 20 00:13:05 2001] [error] (35)Resource temporarily unavailable:
fork: Unable to fork new process
Dan
-Mensagem original-
De: Paul Hooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Enviada em: Quinta-feira, 20 de Setembro de 2001 11:45
Para: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> At 11:33 AM -0300 9/20/01, Daniel Abad wrote:
> >Is it really a problem??? Or just warning?
> >
> >[Thu Sep 20 00:28:53 2001] [error] server reached MaxClients setting,
> >consider raising the MaxClients setting
> >
>
> No doubt, you are getting hammere
At 11:33 AM -0300 9/20/01, Daniel Abad wrote:
>Is it really a problem??? Or just warning?
>
>[Thu Sep 20 00:28:53 2001] [error] server reached MaxClients setting,
>consider raising the MaxClients setting
>
No doubt, you are getting hammered by Nimba causing your server to
spawn extra processes to
Now we're just decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio. :)
-aaron
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 09:45:57AM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Ooops! And the list grows with each post we make :-)
>
> proc_pthread, proc_pthread, proc_pthread...
>
> Bill
>
> > On Wednesday 19 September 2001 09:27 pm, Bill St
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 01:04:48AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 01:00:09AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> > >...
> > > Whoever does the software behind apache-mbox (I take it this is
> > > mod_mbox?) might want to take note that it's spitting out invalid URLs..
> >
> > T
Warning only - your MaxClients directive is set too low. Increasing it will
strip this message from your server.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Abad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 September 2001 15:33
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: server reached MaxClients setting
Is it really
Is it really a problem??? Or just warning?
[Thu Sep 20 00:28:53 2001] [error] server reached MaxClients setting,
consider raising the MaxClients setting
Tks.
Dan
On Wednesday 19 September 2001 02:21 pm, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:16:24PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > On Wednesday 19 September 2001 11:37 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > From: "Greg Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:26 PM
> > > Rea
On Thursday 20 September 2001 05:26 am, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Okay, with three people against me, I stand corrected. Please, let's change
the 2.0 version to just pthread. :-)
Ryan
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > Why is calling it proc_pthread silly? We are talking about a pthread
> > based process lo
Ooops! And the list grows with each post we make :-)
proc_pthread, proc_pthread, proc_pthread...
Bill
> On Wednesday 19 September 2001 09:27 pm, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > proc_thread doesn't tell me anything. If I google for proc_thread, I get no
> > hits. If I google pthread, I at least get hit
On Wednesday 19 September 2001 09:27 pm, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> proc_thread doesn't tell me anything. If I google for proc_thread, I get no
> hits. If I google pthread, I at least get hits that I can search through to
> find anything to do with a 'lock'. pthread is easier to read than
> proc_threa
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Graham Leggett wrote:
>
>>But consensus has just been reached that there will be a
>>single rollup release, so out of necessity there will
>>have to be one version per release.
>>
>
> That is a consensus that was built quite quickly, so it
> is certainly non-bind
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> Why is calling it proc_pthread silly? We are talking about a pthread based
> process lock. Personally, I think Apache 1.3 should be changed, especially
> since it hasn't been released yet. My concern is that calling it a pthread lock
> makes it sound like we are just lock
Graham Leggett wrote:
> Alex Stewart wrote:
>>There seems to be a big assumption here that "release" is the same as
>>"version", which seems like an unnecessary restriction.
>>
>>Frankly, if these are separate subprojects we're talking about (which it
>>seems pretty clear they're going to be evol
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > But consensus has just been reached that there will be a
> > single rollup release, so out of necessity there will
> > have to be one version per release.
>
> That is a consensus that was built quite quickly, so it
> is certainly non-binding if new data suggest
Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> But consensus has just been reached that there will be a
> single rollup release, so out of necessity there will
> have to be one version per release.
That is a consensus that was built quite quickly, so it
is certainly non-binding if new data suggest it is not
the best
Hi,
I am using the apache 2.0.23's apxs tool to build my module. I have to link
my module to third-party shared-library (libvsapi.so) which i did using
the -L & -l option. The mod_vs.so was built, but failed when i did a make?
The make result is attached below.
I think the resulting mod_vs.so fil
Alex Stewart wrote:
> There seems to be a big assumption here that "release" is the same as
> "version", which seems like an unnecessary restriction.
>
> Frankly, if these are separate subprojects we're talking about (which it
> seems pretty clear they're going to be evolving into, if they aren'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Added New Option 'HTTPProxyOverrideReturnedErrors' which lets the server override
> the error pages returned from the proxied server and replace them with the standard
> server error handling on the main server.
I don't like the name of the option - it should sta
Graham Leggett wrote:
> mod_foo wants to make a release, so they release v2.0.45.1 of the rollup
> tree, containing 2.0.45 of core and 2.0.45.1 of mod_foo. But what about
> mod_bar and the other modules? Will their tags need to be bumped up to
> 2.0.45.1 also? I would imagine they would, which i
This is a weird one. See my reply below for my thoughts.
In short, the answer is no because forte is screaming about the double
declaration of mutex - which seems to be a valid error. The mutex
in include/multithread.h really needs to be namespace-protected.
Original message here:
http://grou
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 01:00:09AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> >...
> > Whoever does the software behind apache-mbox (I take it this is
> > mod_mbox?) might want to take note that it's spitting out invalid URLs..
>
> The URLs produced by mod_mbox are fine. Aaron must have posted an unescaped
> ve
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:53:39AM -0700, Alex Stewart wrote:
> On a largely unrelated note, but something I found a little ironic given
> the nature of this list:
>
> Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> >
>http://www.apachelabs.org/apache-mbox/199902.mbox/<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Please note that the ab
On a largely unrelated note, but something I found a little ironic given
the nature of this list:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
> http://www.apachelabs.org/apache-mbox/199902.mbox/<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please note that the above is not a valid URL. Specifically, the "<"
and ">" characters are technica
73 matches
Mail list logo
