non-binding Win32 XP/Vista VC6 VC9
Jim Jagielski wrote:
+/- 1
[+1] Release httpd-2.3.6 as Alpha
Vote closes at 15:00 UTC on Wednesday June 16 2010.
APR 1.4.2
APU 1.3.9
APU 1.4.0-dev
Every module loads this time (lbmethods did not in 2.3.5 IIRC)
SSLCACertificateFile no longer errors for me
I'd
On 6/15/2010 7:27 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi,
> Am 16.06.2010 00:37, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
> Netware
> ===conf default proposed
> StartThreads250 50 50
> MinSpareThreads 25 10 25
> MaxSpareThreads 250
Hi,
Am 16.06.2010 00:37, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
Netware
===conf default proposed
StartThreads250 50 50
MinSpareThreads 25 10 25
MaxSpareThreads 250 100100
MaxThreads 1000 2048 1000
MaxRequestsPerC
On 6/15/2010 4:42 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 15.06.2010 23:09, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> As a broad general question - why not equivalent number of MaxClients
>> across all MPMs?
>
> I was uncertain about that. Users often tend to try to fix performance
> problems by adding concurrency to the
On 6/15/2010 4:15 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 15.06.2010 22:51, Igor Galić wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if this thread is wrong enough for the topic:
>>
>> Would it be possible to choose defaults for the MPMs based on
>> the available CPU(core)s and the Memory, rather than just hard
>> coding the values?
On 6/15/2010 4:20 PM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
>>> Worker/Event
>>> conf default proposed
>>> StartServers 23 2
>>> MinSpareThreads 25 75 25
>>> MaxSpareThreads 75 250100
>>> MaxClients 150 400400
On 15.06.2010 23:20, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 15 Jun 2010, at 4:21 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
trunk CHANGES needs to track fixes/enhancements since the last alpha,
so the candidates for pruning would be in the section "Changes with
Apache 2.3.0".
attached is a patch to prune 2.3.0 changes which w
On 15.06.2010 23:09, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
As a broad general question - why not equivalent number of MaxClients
across all MPMs?
I was uncertain about that. Users often tend to try to fix performance
problems by adding concurrency to the web server. If your web server is
configured very
> >
> > I wonder if this thread is wrong enough for the topic:
> >
> > Would it be possible to choose defaults for the MPMs based on
> > the available CPU(core)s and the Memory, rather than just hard
> > coding the values?
>
> I doubt it's worth it and that we can make it work nicely. I think we
On 15 Jun 2010, at 4:21 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
trunk CHANGES needs to track fixes/enhancements since the last alpha,
so the candidates for pruning would be in the section "Changes with
Apache 2.3.0".
attached is a patch to prune 2.3.0 changes which were backported to
some 2.2.x release; look r
- "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
> As a broad general question - why not equivalent number of MaxClients
> across all MPMs?
Because it might come expensive Memory-wise with some MPMs.
> On 6/15/2010 4:03 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> > The default configuration for various MPMs
> > differs from t
On 15.06.2010 22:51, Igor Galić wrote:
- "Rainer Jung" wrote:
I noticed, that the values in conf/extra/httpd-mpm.conf in parts
differ
hugely from the corresponding MPM defaults.
IMHO activating conf/extra/httpd-mpm.conf should be safe in the sense
that you don't get changed MPM behaviou
As a broad general question - why not equivalent number of MaxClients
across all MPMs?
On 6/15/2010 4:03 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> The default configuration for various MPMs
> differs from the example configuration file
> conf/extra/httpd-mpm.conf.
>
> Before bringing those two in sync, I want
> t
The default configuration for various MPMs
differs from the example configuration file
conf/extra/httpd-mpm.conf.
Before bringing those two in sync, I want
to propose the values we want to use as new
defaults as well as for the extras configuration
file.
Prefork
===conf default
- "Rainer Jung" wrote:
> I noticed, that the values in conf/extra/httpd-mpm.conf in parts
> differ
> hugely from the corresponding MPM defaults.
>
> IMHO activating conf/extra/httpd-mpm.conf should be safe in the sense
>
> that you don't get changed MPM behaviour as long as you don't chan
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 15.06.2010 18:30, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Sorry for the noise, forget about the second addition, doesn't seem to be
> the same thing (prepared statements vs. connection pools).
>
>> @@ -1131,11 +1082,6 @@ Changes with Apache 2.3.0
>> into th
On Tuesday 15 June 2010, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> > +AP_DECLARE(void) ap_log_cserror_(const char *file, int line, int
> > module_index, + int level,
> > apr_status_t status, + const
> > conn_rec *c, const server_rec *s,
> > +
On Monday 14 June 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 6/14/2010 4:20 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > But I am not sure what introducing a new element in struct
> > apr_bucket_file would mean for ABI compatibility. On the one
> > hand, apr_bucket_file is public, on the other hand, there are
> > func
On 15.06.2010 18:30, Rainer Jung wrote:
Sorry for the noise, forget about the second addition, doesn't seem to
be the same thing (prepared statements vs. connection pools).
@@ -1131,11 +1082,6 @@ Changes with Apache 2.3.0
into the environment with the name AUTHENTICATE_. This brings
mod_authn
On 6/15/2010 11:33 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Sorry Bill, don't get it here: what do you suggest? Applying the
> existing values from conf/extra/httpd-mpm.conf to the MPM source code?
Just suggesting we don't really need to 'normalize' these first. Discuss
the appropriate values on dev@ and comm
On Jun 6, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Sunday 06 June 2010, Brian Pane wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Graham Leggett
>> wrote: [...]
>>
>>> We've also been playing with Varnish, one of the cooler things it
>>> does is have the ability to suck up an entire response int
On Jun 9, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Akins, Brian wrote:
> On 6/8/10 7:21 PM, "Graham Leggett" 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 -- lik
On 15.06.2010 17:58, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/15/2010 10:36 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
I noticed, that the values in conf/extra/httpd-mpm.conf in parts differ
hugely from the corresponding MPM defaults.
IMHO activating conf/extra/httpd-mpm.conf should be safe in the sense
that you don't get
On 15.06.2010 16:21, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:06 AM, wrote:
Author: rjung
Date: Tue Jun 15 13:06:14 2010
New Revision: 954862
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=954862&view=rev
Log:
Fix obsolete reference to 2.1 in CHANGES.
Likely we still have to clean CHANGES from th
On 6/15/2010 9:21 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> attached is a patch to prune 2.3.0 changes which were backported to
> some 2.2.x release; look reasonable?
Looks reasonable, thanks for this effort.
On 6/15/2010 10:36 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> I noticed, that the values in conf/extra/httpd-mpm.conf in parts differ
> hugely from the corresponding MPM defaults.
>
> IMHO activating conf/extra/httpd-mpm.conf should be safe in the sense
> that you don't get changed MPM behaviour as long as you don'
I noticed, that the values in conf/extra/httpd-mpm.conf in parts differ
hugely from the corresponding MPM defaults.
IMHO activating conf/extra/httpd-mpm.conf should be safe in the sense
that you don't get changed MPM behaviour as long as you don't change the
file contents. If we think the valu
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:06 AM, wrote:
> Author: rjung
> Date: Tue Jun 15 13:06:14 2010
> New Revision: 954862
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=954862&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix obsolete reference to 2.1 in CHANGES.
>
> Likely we still have to clean CHANGES from things backported
> to 2.2.x.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> On 06/14/2010 09:45 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> The asf-wide, site-dev team noticed our webring seems horribly dated,
>> just as the ASF list of 'apache resources' was. We should determine
>> how we might provide external/thirdpar
> -Original Message-
> From: Rainer Jung
> Sent: Dienstag, 15. Juni 2010 11:43
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Remove "User", "Group" and "ScoreBoardFile" from mpmt_os2
>
> I want to remove "User", "Group" and "ScoreBoardFile" from
> the OS2 MPM.
>
> The directives have an emp
I want to remove "User", "Group" and "ScoreBoardFile" from the OS2 MPM.
The directives have an empty implementation ignore_cmd() and have only
been introduced for consistency with those MPMS which did support it.
In trunk "User" and "Group" are no longer MPM directives, they moved to
mod_unix
On 14.06.2010 21:45, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
The asf-wide, site-dev team noticed our webring seems horribly dated,
just as the ASF list of 'apache resources' was. We should determine
how we might provide external/thirdparty links and under what set
of criteria.
The immediate question is; wha
32 matches
Mail list logo
