MPM too...
So in the end the even MPM is not all that compelling yet -- for me at
least.
There are a few other features in 2.2 that'd be nice to have, but the
big draw just isn't complete enough in scope.
--
Jess Holle
On 8/18/2012 8:39 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 17, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Jess Holle je...@ptc.com wrote:\
Downstream customers in my case means customers that will deploy Apache and
our products on their own servers. In a great many cases these servers run Windows.
Ahh. That explains
Does the event MPM now:
1. Work on Windows?
2. Work with HTTPS?
When both are true 2.4.x will become very interesting. Until then, not
so much over 2.2.x.
On 8/17/2012 12:34 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.3 can be found
at the usual place:
barring any
other such regressions.
--
Jess Holle
On 8/17/2012 12:48 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
In the Announcement you'll see:
NOTE to Windows users: The issues with AcceptFilter None replacing
Win32DisableAcceptEx appears to have resolved starting with version
2.4.3 make
am curious how the number of downstream customers being Windows effects
anything on the server side...
On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Jess Holle je...@ptc.com wrote:
The fact that there is no event MPM equivalent for Windows is a huge gap for
2.4.x.
Given the large percentage of our downstream
work out their differences such that one can reduce the threads required
when HTTPS is used. For those who use a lot of HTTPS, the event MPM
doesn't seem to buy one anything for now, right?
On 2/21/2012 1:00 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/20/2012 8:04 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
Ok, issues
:
On 2/17/2012 10:38 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
On 2/17/2012 3:15 PM, Jess Holle wrote:
Does this mean the Windows-specific issues have been resolved?
Or that this is a non-Windows GA?
No, the Windows specific issue (PR 52476) has not been solved.
So it's GA for all but Windows.
It's quite certainly
Does this mean the Windows-specific issues have been resolved?
Or that this is a non-Windows GA?
On 2/17/2012 9:13 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Jim Jagielskij...@jagunet.com wrote:
As such, I call the vote as PASSING and that httpd 2.4.1 will
be released as GA.
it's not a
blocker, because IMHO most users do not control the service via the
commandline interface.
Hmmm... We do.
--
Jess Holle
. This would seem to be *huge* step forward in load
balancing capability/fidelity.
It's my understanding that mod_cluster is pursuing just this sort of
thing to some degree -- but currently only works for JBoss backends.
--
Jess Holle
in that direction at some point
mod_cluster may be in my future.
--
Jess Holle
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
An ability to balance based on new sessions with an idle time out on
such sessions would be close enough to reality in cases where
sessions expire rather than being explicitly invalidated (e.g. by a
logout).
Storing the sessionid to share the load
and/or mod_proxy_balancer could
do health checks, but you have to draw the line somewhere on growing
any given module and if mod_jk and mod_proxy_balancer are not going
in that direction at some point mod_cluster may be in my future.
--
Jess Holle
Rainer Jung wrote:
On 06.05.2009 14:35, jean-frederic clere wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
Rainer Jung wrote:
Yes, I think the counter/aging discussion is for the baseline, i.e. when
we do not have any information channel to or from the backend nodes.
As soon as mod_cluster comes
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 6, 2009, at 4:35 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
Of course that redoes what a servlet engine would be doing and does
so with lower fidelity. An ability to ask a backend for its current
session count and load balance new requests on that basis would be
really helpful
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 6, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Should general support for a query URL be provided in
mod_proxy_balancer? Or should this be left to mod_cluster?
Can you explain more? I don't get the question.
What I mean is
• Should
requests
instead.]
--
Jess Holle
center on handling of dead workers,
especially having a multiple dead workers and/or workers that are dead
for long periods of time.
I've not yet checked whether mod_jk (where I believe these basic
algorithms came from) has similar issues.
--
Jess Holle
Jess Holle wrote:
proxy_handler() calls ap_proxy_pre_request() inside a do loop over
balanced workers.
This in turn calls proxy_balancer_pre_request() which does
(*worker)-s-busy++.
Correspondingly proxy_balancer_post_request() does:
if (worker worker-s-busy)
worker
regarding APR_SO_NONBLOCK -- as this is necessary on Windows to
get connection timeouts to work -- at least until someone fixes the
apr_socket_connect() implementation on Windows.
--
Jess Holle
P.S. I've developed a similar patch for the tomcat JK connectors as well.
--- modules/proxy
Also note that the mod_jk code works just fine here, i.e. its socket
connection timeouts are obeyed without further hackery.
This is via jk_connect.c's nb_connect(), not APR, though -- so chalk one
up for by-passing APR?
--
Jess Holle
Jess Holle wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
I guess you
performance impacts, e.g.
on HTTPS. Can someone explain how this could be? I ask in part as
unless/until someone figures out the right fix in APR, I'll have to use
Matt's patch -- and would like to understand the downsides and mitigate
them if possible.
--
Jess Holle
like:
BalancerMember ajp://localhost:8010 route=tomcat1 min=16 max=80
smax=40 ttl=900 keepalive=Off timeout=9 retry=30
connectiontimeout=160ms flushpackets=on
--
Jess Holle
Thanks!
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 12/16/2008 11:17 PM, Jess Holle wrote:
Did anyone test this on Windows?
I stumbled across the same issue on Red Hat AS 5 today.
Try to patch your APR with
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=727052view=rev
from APR trunk. This should fix this.
I
as 160ms is significantly less
than 1000ms...
--
Jess Holle
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 12/16/2008 11:17 PM, Jess Holle wrote:
Did anyone test this on Windows?
I stumbled across the same issue on Red Hat AS 5 today.
Try to patch your APR with
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=727052view
for real soon here and keep doing so with each new 2.2.x. It would be
/much/ better to just have this in 2.2.x.
--
Jess Holle
Cool. Thanks!
I'll anxiously await 2.2.11 then.
Rainer Jung wrote:
Jess Holle schrieb:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 11/15/2008 09:50 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Given the positive feedback: Please vote now on the backports :-).
I /really/ want to see a sub-second proxy
:-)
--
Jess Holle
this to mod_jk (where I also need such a
capability for the IIS/Tomcat connector).
This seems cleaner than the GetTcpTable mess I was creating (as I'd
assume local connections should take significantly less than 1 second to
connect when successful).
--
Jess Holle
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/13/2008 12:50 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstand things here, but isn't this connection timeout
setting used for more than just the timing out the initial formation of
the connection? It would seem that logical that there would be a
connection timeout
machine.
He's also somewhat of a Windows guru, but I'd be ecstatic if someone
could point out a reasonable way around this issue.
--
Jess Holle
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/13/2008 12:50 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstand things here, but isn't this connection timeout
setting used for more than just the timing out the initial formation of
the connection? It would seem that logical that there would be a
connection timeout
does not match up with the 9 seconds in any way.
--
Jess Holle
and about a 0.6 second on the second -- resulting in about
a 1 second overall delay when other overhead/latency is included.
I don't see a way to reduce this delay and overall concur with Andy that
this parameter should be 0 by all rights. Any thoughts?
--
Jess Holle
Andy Wang wrote:
Ruediger
of
RSTs, right?
--
Jess Holle
31a32,35
#ifdef WIN32
#include iphlpapi.h
#endif
2268a2273,2397
#ifdef WIN32
typedef struct live_port_data_t live_port_data_t;
struct live_port_data_t {
apr_time_t time_obtained;
int n_ports;
int *ports;
};
static
Jess Holle wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
So if noone finds a registry entry to stop this RFC violating behaviour
I'd love to see this solved by such a discovery, option 0.
I see only two options on Windows:
1. Fiddle around with GetTcpTable.
I've attached my incomplete code
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/13/2008 09:37 PM, Jess Holle wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
So if noone finds a registry entry to stop this RFC violating behaviour
I'd love to see this solved by such a discovery, option 0.
I see only two options on Windows:
1. Fiddle around
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/13/2008 10:04 PM, Jess Holle wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
So if noone finds a registry entry to stop this RFC violating behaviour
I'd love to see this solved by such a discovery, option 0.
I see only two options
no
such resource for JServ at this point.
Also I'd suggest just moving up to Java 5 (and a recent AspectJ version)
and using the javaagent-based approach, which is a lot easier and
cleaner than ClassLoader hackery.
--
Jess Holle
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/13/2008 10:35 PM, jetpilot wrote:
Hi All
/write), but to do so I
clearly need to hook into the right place in the Apache life cycle and
the right pool.
--
Jess Holle
P.S. Sorry for the stupid question -- the nuances of Apache lifecycle,
pools, etc, are still clearly beyond me.
). That should seemingly be distinct from an initial
connection timeout, but my understanding was that it is not.
Am I just confused here?
--
Jess Holle
Matt Stevenson wrote:
Hi,
Send this to the wrong address first time. May have saved the GetTcpTable
coding.
Here is a usec timeout fix, although I
Jess Holle wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Did you check whether the currently running thread proxy_ajp connect timeout
fix.
(http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200810.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
and
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200810.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED
, unfortunately.
--
Jess Holle
P.S. Yes, I know this approach only has any hope of working when Apache
and the proxy backends are on the same host.
Jess Holle wrote:
I had previously discovered that mod_proxy_balancer takes over 1
second on Windows to determine that nothing is listening on the target
port. This becomes
if this isn't an odd-ball hack by Microsoft to
slow down remote port scans.
I'll give the timeout fix a try, but I'm not hopeful given the data so far.
--
Jess Holle
rather just keep the code simple
and have reasonable TCP/IP stack behavior -- but I may just be dreaming
in this regard.
--
Jess Holle
sanity.
Thoughts? Suggestions?
--
Jess Holle
but the
MS LDAP SDK garbles this.
--
Jess Holle
apparently
* util_ldap*.c: still changing '#if APR_HAS_SHARED_MEMORY' to '#if
0' as last we checked the shared memory stuff was still unstable
with the worker MPM -- at least on Solaris and AIX
--
Jess Holle
Was a solution ever arrived at for proper handling of %3B (escaped ';')
in URLs passed to Tomcat via mod_proxy_ajp?
This and 8K AJP packet handling are sorely missing in mod_proxy_ajp.
--
Jess Holle
jean-frederic clere wrote:
I have looked to #44803 in fact we need something like JkOptions
+ForwardURIEscaped which means something that requires changes in both
mod_rewrite and mod_proxy.
I will propose a patch soon.
Thank you!
--
Jess Holle
is really needed
for ;.
--
Jess Holle
.
And that would be JK_OPT_FWDURICOMPATUNPARSED and not ForwardURIEscaped.
To get ForwardURIEscaped we could call ap_escape_uri() on url.
I can confirm that using ProxyPass and nocanon does not solve the
problem -- I just tested this.
--
Jess Holle
.
Is this the same as the patch attached to the bug report -- or a
different one?
--
Jess Holle
Jess Holle wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Can you try:
Index: modules/proxy/mod_proxy_ajp.c
===
--- modules/proxy/mod_proxy_ajp.c(revision 648735)
+++ modules/proxy/mod_proxy_ajp.c(working copy)
@@ -72,8 +72,13
. If you have no query args, then either is fine.
We generally have query strings (and have to support the most general
case due to the number of quite disparate pages being served), so we'll
need the full patch. Thanks.
--
Jess Holle
of this month.
Sorry to butt in, but is there any hope of getting issue #44803
addressed in that timeframe?
[The gap between mod_jk and mod_proxy_ajp in this and other areas (I
don't believe it can set a longer packet size than 8K yet) is a bit
troubling...]
--
Jess Holle
for some
cases. mod_jk has it and I believe trunk does as well.
--
Jess Holle
Thanks!
--
Jess Holle
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
Now that you bring up mod_proxy_ajp... Has the flexible packet size
stuff been backported to 2.2.x yet? This stuff is important for some
cases. mod_jk has it and I believe trunk does as well.
It does, but don't know why
?
--
Jess Holle
...
--
Jess Holle
(or if they will be).
--
Jess Holle
Rainer Jung wrote:
As I understand mod_proxy_* and APR code, the BalancerManager timeout
will set a timeout for individual read and write attempts to backend
connections.
So it neither correlates to an idle timeout on the connection (see ttl
and smax) neither
to me from the docs,
though.
--
Jess Holle
Ah, that would make sense -- but that's not what the docs say as you
point out :-)
--
Jess Holle
Rainer Jung wrote:
I think you need to make a distinction between the timeout *attribute*
on a BalancerMember and the one on a balancer itself. At least the
code does the distinction (2.2.4
now because we normally only allow
cookie-based session passing but suddenly have cause to support this
form as well in some corner cases. While we can work around the issue
it would seem Location should simply be fixed.
--
Jess Holle
basically,
ProxyPass more JkMount-like...
Gotcha.
--
Jess Holle
anywhere...
--
Jess Holle
Apache 2.0 and mod_jk, which work fine, but I need
authentication against multiple LDAPs -- which is another feature 2.2
has over both 2.0 and Tomcat.
--
Jess Holle
). The latter case is actually our
real issue, but unless/until static file downloads don't show this
degradation there seems to be little point in chasing the (more
complex) dynamic case.
--
Jess Holle
Jess Holle wrote:
I'm seeing what appears to be really severe performance degradation
during the course of really large downloads (e.g. 800MBs) on Windows
Apache's -- both 2.0.x (recent builds) and 2.2.3.
Has anyone else seen this? Is this just a lack of tuning? If so,
pointers would
Jess Holle wrote:
In some of my testing, Win32DisableAcceptEx seems to make a huge
improvement, however...
Okay, I take that back...
Jess Holle
wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
I'm seeing what appears to be really severe performance degradation
during the course of really
have to keep sorting the aliases until nothing crashes!
It would also be nice to see some of the mod_jk improvements merged
into mod_proxy_ajp, but that's not going to happen overnight.
--
Jess Holle
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Eli
Marmor wrote:
Hi,
3 months have passed since
I'm not asking for substantive changes in 2.2.x.
I'm just hoping to see a steady (but not overly rapid) stream of
updates to 2.2.x -- especially to address bug #40051
(short term) and mod_proxy_ajp's lack of the latest mod_jk features
(mid term).
--
Jess Holle
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote
kill the Apache worker processes, right? Could this be an
issue in 2.2.2's mod_cgi?
To make matters weirder the issue went away for one developer, but he
does not know what he did to make it go away nor can anyone else seem
to reproduce this.
--
Jess Holle
to determine what's going
wrong -- or if this even makes sense
Of course if there is some out-of-the-box verbosity option I'm missing
to help with this, I'm all ears. I used LogLevel debug, of course, but
it told me nothing new.
--
Jess Holle
Jess Holle wrote:
With Apache 2.2.2 on Windows, we're
licked this issue in its way (and I assume mod_proxy_ajp
inherited this), but last I checked mod_ldap still had serious issues
(e.g. hung and/or failed requests) when such connection drops occur.
--
Jess Holle
whose inclusion prior to the CGI conf file causes the issue) contain
similar things except no ScriptAlias usage plus Location and some
mod_rewrite usage.
--
Jess Holle
Jess Holle wrote:
Note: In case anyone thinks I posted to the wrong group, I'm really
looking for:
Developer-level info
notions as to what's really going on
gathered).
Jess Holle wrote:
A little more troubleshooting shows that this is likely not an issue
with the particular CGI in question.
I say this because the issue goes away when we reorder several of our
conf files. Even if this is our error, a child death
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 10:47:15AM -0500, Jess Holle wrote:
So what's the story with IPv6 on Windows?
Works fine in every version of windows since 2000, although 2000 itself
needs a kit and patching installed.
Great. That covers all versions
This seemed to work fine last I tried it (with mod_jk).
Trent Nelson wrote:
You're after NTLM support. There's a module floating around out there
named 'mod_auth_sspi' that does this, although it can be a bit hard to
track down (see
. 2.2.1 shouldn't be
labeled as GA if it does not build on Windows as is, though.
--
Jess Holle
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
On 4/1/06, Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No go on win32:
unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in
function _show_compile_settings
.\Release/httpd.exe
Tomcat 6 as a long ways off from a production support / usage
perspective.
--
Jess Holle
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Any other comments about the patch? Should I just
commit the revised one and we can tweak from
there...
+1
Although I still consider FLUSHING_BANDAID as
useless
.
--
Jess Holle
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
I would love that we remove the FLUSHING_BANDAID from the code
because it concept breaks the AJP protocol specification.
Instead FLUSHING_BANDAID I propose that we introduce a new
directive 'flush=on' that would behave like the most recent
mod_jk directive
As someone who depends on such flushing I'd echo that we don't need
flushing after every AJP packet -- just when we explicitly call flush().
Plm wrote:
-Ursprngliche Nachricht-
Von: Mladen Turk
First: I am the author.
Hi,
I would love that we
I believe mod_jk added an explicit flush option rather than reverting
the default to flushing -- as I believe we suddenly had to add this
after our application stopped behaving properly and traced this issue back.
--
Jess Holle
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
OTH I guess
was used or whether it operated in
compatibility mode.
--
Jess Holle
are coworkers) don't necessarily have
a preferred platform. We have to build, ship, and support a
consistent quasi-auto-configuring Apache on Windows, Solaris, AIX, and
(soon) some Linux variants.
We need all of the above to work and have solid official sources
available.
--
Jess Holle
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
When Apache declares some tarball 2.2.0 released, it never changes.
It won't
change until a 2.2.1 is released. And 2.2.1 has not been released
due to bugs
that affect *ALL* platforms, not just your preferred platform
compiler/optimizer possible without sacrificing too
much compatibility.
What's the strategy here?
--
Jess Holle
-- including mod_authn_alias -- and this
should not be harder than with Apache 2.0.x.
--
Jess Holle
Joost de Heer wrote:
Apachelounge has a binary available, which you can download after
registering. This isn't an official build however.
The binary at the Apachelounge is build
Paul A Houle wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
So if one uses worker and few processes (i.e. lots of threads per),
then Solaris should be fine?
That's what people think, but I'd like to see some numbers.
I've never put a worker Apache into production because most of our
systems depend
Once 2.2 is released we'll be working to use it -- and distribute it
with our products -- on Windows, Solaris, and AIX.
I throw in patches relevant to these platforms when possible, but I
don't have the time or interest in native (non-Java) code anymore to
help out more.
--
Jess Holle
I'm no commiter but must concur -- until the build runs cleanly on
Windows 2.2.0 should not go out the door.
Not everyone may like it, but Windows is a major Apache usage platform
these days.
--
Jess Holle
Nick Kew wrote:
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 08:32, Paul Querna wrote
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 05:53:52AM -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
I'm no commiter but must concur -- until the build runs cleanly on
Windows 2.2.0 should not go out the door.
Not everyone may like it, but Windows is a major Apache usage platform
these days
on this matter, but
I'd say go ahead and go for 2.2.0 if this is the biggest issue out
there. [I'm much more concerned about authentication against multiple
LDAPs than anything else in the authentication arena.]
--
Jess Holle
. Either
we stop refering to mod_dbd as something special enough
to warrant special attention as a core enhancement or
we fix it so it *is* one.
That is a good point. Truth in advertising (as best as can be managed)
will only help -- and lack thereof only hurt...
--
Jess Holle
, of Apache for our customers (so the raw build result is more useful).
--
Jess Holle
Joost de Heer wrote:
Win32 is not special. It's a second-class citizen if anything
because it gets so little developer attention.
And how many people compile the thing on Windows anyway, except the
msi builder
.
So if one uses worker and few processes (i.e. lots of threads per), then
Solaris should be fine?
--
Jess Holle
process on Windows?
Also not using shared memory allowed us to keep using a local read/write
lock rather than a global lock for a while, but maintaining this diff
became unwieldy over time, so I gave up on this.
--
Jess Holle
Graham Leggett wrote:
Michael Vergoz wrote:
also note
Dropping the cache upon a graceful seems like a small price to pay to
me, but I can see others begging to differ...
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
I'd long since given up and been patching all the mod_*ldap stuff to
pretend shared memory does not exist on Windows
1 - 100 of 188 matches
Mail list logo
