DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32915.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32998.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32998.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
I'm currently working on code that extended the lb method
within the 2.1/2.2 proxy from what is basically a
weighted request count to also be a weighted
traffic count (as measured by bytes transferred)
and a weighted load count (as measured by response
time). The former is further along and the
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 8:52 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Working on some load balancing methods
I'm currently working on code that extended the lb method within the
2.1/2.2 proxy from what is basically a weighted request count
On 19.10.2004, at 04:03, Bennett, Tony - CNF wrote:
I have tried adding two different home-grown modules
to be statically linked when attempting to configure httpd 2.0.52 on
AIX 5.1.
My configure command:
...
It only builds the module specified in the last --with-module
directive.
Is this a
Why is it hardcoded to be 8000? It would seem like you could easily be
unlucky and just miss the cutoff and end up with a 6000 byte heap bucket
followed by a 3000 byte transient bucket, for example, as a result of 3
3000 byte ap_rwrites. For that particular case it might be quite
beneficial
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Why is it hardcoded to be 8000? It would seem like you could easily be
unlucky and just miss the cutoff and end up with a 6000 byte heap bucket
followed by a 3000 byte transient bucket, for example, as a result of 3
3000 byte ap_rwrites. For that
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Why is it hardcoded to be 8000? It would seem like you could easily be
unlucky and just miss the cutoff and end up with a 6000 byte heap bucket
followed by a 3000 byte transient bucket, for example, as a result of 3
3000 byte
