On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 06:00:09AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Colm...
>
> Slainte!...
> Cead mile failte romhat!
> Go raibh maith agat!
Agus tú féin a cháirde, chaitfidh mé rá b'éidir gurb seo on
t-aon deis a bhéis gam cumarsáid le Gaeilgeoir so comh-théacs
seo, ach mar a deartaí áfac
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 04:40:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Got any real numbers?
Completely unconfigured, out of the box configs;
Apache 1.3.29;
Concurrency Level: 100
Time taken for tests: 2.54841 seconds
Complete requests: 1000
Failed requests:0
Write errors:
Having a fallback servername of 127.0.0.1 is broken, I realise even
in IPv4 it's not a globally reachable address, but in IPv6 it's
just plain confusing and leads to a lot (well o.k. 3 ever) of reports
that Apache isnt working for someone in IPv6.
Index: server/util.c
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 02:05:33AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> FACT?: Apache 2.0 pre-fork ( which is the only thing still available on
> some of the best platforms ) is SLOWER than Apache 1.3 pre-fork.
Not for me it's not. Especially with sendfile.
--
Colm MacCárthaigh
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 05:14:35PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
> 3). Contributions
>
> I don't have numbers to support my clause, but I have a strong feeling
> that nowadays we see a much smaller number of posts with contributions
> from non-developers
More facetious than anything else, I'm going t
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 06:02:36AM -0700, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
> So, anyone got any hard data that shows Apache 2.x serving pages "factors"
> faster than 1.x?
Yes, plenty :) ftp.heanet.ie serves about 1 million requests, well over
a terabyte of data per day and maintains an average of about 2
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:26:55AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Because I want to provide some FreeBSD binaries of the
> latest release, and I'm lazy, I need to ask: Will binaries
> compiled under FreeBSD 3.4 work under 4.8/4.9 ?
The binaries will run, but if they use any kernel structures
which
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 02:43:38PM -0500, Dale Ghent wrote:
> Looks like a bug in Apache's APR library, not accounting for systems which
> do not have IPv6 capabilities.
That section is #ifdef'd on APR_HAVE_IPV6, errors about a structure
not being complete generally mean a #include is missing (in
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 02:23:12PM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> You don't by any chance have NEED_WAITPID defined somewhere, do you?
I do, in ./srclib/apr/include/arch/unix/apr_private.h , but not in
anywwhere that matters for mpm_common.c. The #ifdef block you
cite definitely isn't evaluating, I
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 08:25:43PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> I'm running APACHE_2_0_BRANCH now, we'll see if it repeats.
As suspected, it does, and in 2.1-dev, same general result.
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EM
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 12:09:54PM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> It looks like your stack is getting blown away somehow, since gdb
> is unable to read local variables.
Yep, it is, and I'm having a hard time getting past this. hexdump
is not a great way to deal with core files :(
> What modules ar
One of our servers is getting truly hammered today (5,000 simultaneous
clients is not unusual right now), so I've been tinkering with worker
instead of prefork. It's not doing nice things for me :(
The master (running-as-root) httpd is segfaulting after a few minutes, but
the children are stayin
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 03:03:30PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>
> > > The resends are not a bother. :) Should this change go in both 2.0 and
> > > 2.1 or just 2.1? I don't happen to remember whether the change it g
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:09:57PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >jwoolley2003/09/28 09:27:24
> >
> > Modified:.configure.in
> > docs/conf httpd-std.conf.in
> > Log:
> > "Listen 80" just works now, using v4-only, v6-only, mapped address
- Forwarded message from Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 16:22:13 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Patch] remove unneccessary IPv6 autoconf-fu
"Listen 80" ju
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:52:37AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've tagged the 2.1 tree with STRIKER_2_1_0_PRE3. Hopefully this is the
> last tag before the first 2.1 release. Please give it a test run.
> Tarballs are at:
>
> http://www.apache.org/~striker/httpd-2.1.0-pre3/
It sti
"Listen 80" just works now, using v4-only, v6-only, mapped address
or non-mapped addresses.
Index: configure.in
===
RCS file: /home/cvspublic/httpd-2.0/configure.in,v
retrieving revision 1.254
diff -u -u -r1.254 configure.in
--- conf
*mutters something about not liking being responsible for a segfault*
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:22:32AM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> Setting lr to NULL causes a seg-fault if the port was already
> in use, and didnt do what it was intended to anyway since the
> for loop termina
Patch attachted arose in two parts; originally it was a trivial patch
to allow SuexecUserGroup directives in blocks, because
a few people needed it, not least a large client ;) It effectively
means it's possible to execute different parts of a [virtual] host
as different users.
The problem then
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 06:32:08PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> I committed a patch (different to the one I posted) which passes the
> right thing to the IN6_blah macro, so it should compile still on Darwin.
> Ta!
To further illustrate how silly it was of me to write a patch at
4am on Sunday morning
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:27:03AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> Also the below conditional looks dubious - previous->bind_addr should be
> lr->bind_addr, and the lr->next family is never checked?
*cough*, yes
> -*((in_addr_t *)lr->bind_addr->ipaddr_ptr) == INADDR_ANY &&
> +
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:45:40PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I just committed a variant of your patch. I had to add some things to get
> it to compile on Darwin.
>
> Please let me know how that works for you. I know it compiles on Linux,
> but the Linux box I have partial access to doe
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 03:47:09PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I've got the patch to do multiple listeners off one Listen directive in my
> tree and tested, but I'm currently swamped with other stuff.
Now that it's been commited, I've been trying it out and it's broken :(
Right now, httpd
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:31:07AM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> So, attachted is a best-effort patch which should solve the
> problems.
Bah, it's always the way, 2 minutes after testing and then mailing
a patch I realise there's a small slip-up. Patch without the
stupid-obvi
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:45:20PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Thursday, August 14, 2003 23:43:23 +0100 "Colm MacCarthaigh,,,"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >good good, patch works so :) In which I'll now cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include
> >
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 09:02:52AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Nope, it's getaddrinfo('::', AF_INET6, 0) that causes the failure. Are we
> sure that '::' is standard? I couldn't find any documentation to support
> that.
It's not standard, but there isnt an implementor out there who
doesn
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 05:48:38PM -0400, John K. Sterling wrote:
> On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 05:20 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh,,, wrote:
>
> >Can you just confirm it's listening in v6 only ? the output of
> >"netstat -an | grep LISTEN" (Darwin has netstat and
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 04:56:48PM -0400, John K. Sterling wrote:
> Hi Colm -
>
> I'm not sure what to be looking for, but i applied your patch, rebuilt
> (with the broken_ipv6 set to 0, of course), turned on HostnameLookups,
> and my access logs have remote hostname properly resolved.
That s
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 09:14:35AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> - Trim IPv6 addresses from getaddrinfo()'s return values if APR_HAVE_IPV6
> is 0.
>
> (Perhaps only allow PF_INET sockets values to go in there.)
>
> - Re-enable IPv6 on Darwin, and try to come up with a better solution to
> t
(Cc:ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] now, because of APR patch)
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 10:12:45AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Tuesday, August 12, 2003 5:58 PM +0100 "Colm MacCarthaigh,,,"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Even lo0 ? That's hard ;)
>
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 07:28:20PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Listen 8080
If IPv6 has been enabled, that should bind to :: , this is the standard
behaviour of all IPv6 apps, and to not do so would be utterly broken.
If by some quirk the OS doesnt support IPv4 over IPv6 sockets, then
getaddr
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 03:18:19PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> - addr *may* be NULL when alloc_listener is invoked. Adding a NULL check
> before doing the strcmp would indeed fix this problem, but prevents
> listener reuse.
Since NULL only defines unqualified addresses, ie: "Listen 80" ,
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:41:44AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Thursday, August 14, 2003 6:06 PM +0100 "Colm MacCarthaigh,,,"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Both these things really need to happen. The first is relatively
> >trivial:
>
&
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 09:44:36AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Tuesday, August 12, 2003 5:33 PM +0100 "Colm MacCarthaigh,,,"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >This is good though, if v6 is available and we can't listen there
> >then it shou
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 09:04:05AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >If IPv6 has been enabled, that should bind to :: , this is the standard
> >behaviour of all IPv6 apps, and to not do so would be utterly broken.
> >If by some quirk the OS doesn't support IPv4 over IPv6 sockets, then
> >getaddrin
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:30:04PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh,,, wrote:
>
> After all, if someone did:
>
> Listen 80
>
> and then:
>
> Listen 127.0.0.1 80
>
> Shouldnt the original socket get re-used ? Or alternatively an error
> delivered.
*actually thinks
heads up on the inconsistency :)
- Forwarded message from David Malone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Delivery-date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 16:47:43 +
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Quick apache patch.
From: David Malone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In Apache 1.3 the accept filter name for recent versions
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 02:48:53PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Linux (2.4.18 and 2.4.19, for me anyway) with apache versions
> > 2.0.40 to 2.0.43 (that I've tested anyways) is broken with
> > TCP_CORK and IP
Linux (2.4.18 and 2.4.19, for me anyway) with apache versions
2.0.40 to 2.0.43 (that I've tested anyways) is broken with
TCP_CORK and IPv6. Bizarrely v6 requests will work the first
few times and then start failing, typically you just wont get
a response from the server. Though strace shows that i
401 - 439 of 439 matches
Mail list logo
