Build Update for apache/httpd
-
Build: #1958
Status: Broken
Duration: 9 mins and 29 secs
Commit: 8720881 (trunk)
Author: Ruediger Pluem
Message: * Correctly decrement active_daemons also in the case that the child
process decides on its own to die because of
Build Update for apache/httpd
-
Build: #1956
Status: Broken
Duration: 21 mins and 37 secs
Commit: 6d76cbb (trunk)
Author: Yann Ylavic
Message: mod_rewrite: Fix UDS ("unix:") scheme for [P] rules. PR 57691 + 65590.
Handle the unix: scheme as an obsolute URI
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:52 PM Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> On 9/22/21 8:31 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 9/21/21 9:56 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> >> I am just investigating a case where a httpd 2.4.49 gets stuck and as part
> >> of the investigation
> >> I am asking myself if we should
On 9/22/21 8:31 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> On 9/21/21 9:56 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> I am just investigating a case where a httpd 2.4.49 gets stuck and as part
>> of the investigation
>> I am asking myself if we should count processes that die because of
>> MaxRequestsPerChild still
On 9/22/21 5:41 PM, ste...@eissing.org wrote:
>
>> Am 22.09.2021 um 17:30 schrieb Ruediger Pluem :
>>
>> Currently we use the timeout setting of a virtual server hardcoded as the
>> beam timeout.
>> While I think that this is a good default I have situations where I think it
>> would be
> Am 22.09.2021 um 17:30 schrieb Ruediger Pluem :
>
> Currently we use the timeout setting of a virtual server hardcoded as the
> beam timeout.
> While I think that this is a good default I have situations where I think it
> would be beneficial to set this timeout separately.
> Opinions on a
Currently we use the timeout setting of a virtual server hardcoded as the beam
timeout.
While I think that this is a good default I have situations where I think it
would be beneficial to set this timeout separately.
Opinions on a directive that allows to set this explicitly with a default of
On 9/22/21 3:49 PM, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
> Ruediger Pluem writes:
>
>> Does the attached patch solve your issue?
>
> It does appear to solve the problem with missing errors, thanks!
>
> I haven't checked that in detail, but I think there might be a discrepancy
> in how `err` is handled in
Ruediger Pluem writes:
> Does the attached patch solve your issue?
It does appear to solve the problem with missing errors, thanks!
I haven't checked that in detail, but I think there might be a discrepancy
in how `err` is handled in the patch and for example when calling the
On 9/21/21 9:56 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> I am just investigating a case where a httpd 2.4.49 gets stuck and as part of
> the investigation
> I am asking myself if we should count processes that die because of
> MaxRequestsPerChild still count
> to active_daemons?
> Because if we do like
10 matches
Mail list logo