-Original Message-
From: William A. Rowe Jr. [mailto:wmr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 06:58
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH ASF bugzilla# 55897]prefork_mpm patch with
SO_REUSEPORT support
If you want to truly re-architect the MPM, by all means,
On 06 Mar 2014, at 10:15 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com wrote:
+1 to a new MPM on trunk. This gives it more time to settle and to stabilize
without disrupting current stuff. And if it is fast and stable it will
certainly
cause the 'older' MPM to drop in
Hi,
i have actual an problem with my proxy-timeout configuration.
(Apache 2.2.26, but 2.4 seems to have the same problem).
In my apache configuration we have defined a global ProxyTimeout to 30
seconds.
But one of our JBoss-backends have some slow pages, and we want to raise
the timeout to 2
Hi,
I have a situation where I have to install httpd of v 2.X in a centos linux
machine where already older version of httpd is running there. For some
reasons, I couldn't make use of single upgraded httpd.
I have to push this install in production servers via rpm and yum. So I
have compiled rpm
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:17 AM, InuSasha i...@inusasha.de wrote:
i have actual an problem with my proxy-timeout configuration.
(Apache 2.2.26, but 2.4 seems to have the same problem).
Try us...@httpd.apache.org
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Lu, Yingqi yingqi...@intel.com wrote:
1. If I understand correctly (please correct me if not), do you suggest
duplicating the listen socks inside the child process with SO_REUSEPROT
enabled? Yes, I agree this would be a cleaner implementation and I actually
++1.
On Mar 6, 2014, at 3:15 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: William A. Rowe Jr. [mailto:wmr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 06:58
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH ASF bugzilla#
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Lu, Yingqi yingqi...@intel.com wrote:
1. If I understand correctly (please correct me if not), do you suggest
duplicating the listen socks inside the child process with SO_REUSEPROT
enabled? Yes, I agree this would be a cleaner implementation and I actually
I'm not sure (yet) a new MPM is needed, or rather, multiple new MPMs are
needed.
The bucketized listeners is applyable to all (*nix only?) MPMs, that
would lead to as much forks...
Couldn't new directives be created instead (ServerBucketsNum, Listen
ip:port ratio, ...), defaulting to the current
Yann,
what you might wish to consider is that each individual MPM may be
compiled alongside the others. If you do a feature select, you are
left with one of the other.
If it is designed to cohabitate, then it may share sources under the
os/ branch, but can still exist as a separate loadable
Hi Bill,
I was just worried about forking mpm_prefork into mpm_prefork_buckets, and
so on with worker/event/..., most of the code would have been the same.
But I can't disagree with you, factorizing the existing MPMs shared codes
(it seems there are quite some) and future ones into a common
Hi Yann,
Yes, without SO_REUSEPORT, child only accepts connections from a single
listening socket only. In order to address the situation of in-balanced traffic
among different sockets/listen statements, the patch makes each bucket does its
own idler server maintenance. For example, if we have
12 matches
Mail list logo
