AW: AW: [Patch] Keep Alive not workwing with mod_proxy (PR38602)

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jim Jagielski I vote to commit and use that as the continue point for more development :) Excellent. I will do so tonight German time. Currently I am away from my development env as you may have noticed from my nicely formated Outlook mails :-).

Re: AW: AW: [Patch] Keep Alive not workwing with mod_proxy (PR38602)

I'll do it, no prob. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pl=FCm=2C_R=FCdiger=2C_VIS?= wrote: -Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht- Von: Jim Jagielski=20 =20 =20 I vote to commit and use that as the continue point for more development :) Excellent. I will do so tonight German time. Currently I am

AW: AW: [Patch] Keep Alive not workwing with mod_proxy (PR38602)

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jim Jagielski I'm currently trying to trace through exactly how the code is trying to pool connections. Of course, we're only using reslist if we're a threaded MPM... Really? I thought APR_HAS_THREADS is set when the OS supports threads. I thought

Re: AW: AW: [Patch] Keep Alive not workwing with mod_proxy (PR38602)

=?iso-8859-1?Q?Pl=FCm=2C_R=FCdiger=2C_VIS?= wrote: -Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht- Von: Jim Jagielski I'm currently trying to trace through exactly how the code is=20 trying to pool connections. Of course, we're only using=20 reslist if we're a threaded MPM... Really? I

AW: AW: AW: [Patch] Keep Alive not workwing with mod_proxy (PR38602)

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jim Jagielski Yeah, but we check to see if we're 1 thread, so in prefork, we drop to single connection workers. Which makes sense to me. Why have more than one connection per worker on a prefork processes that can only handle one request at a

Re: AW: AW: AW: [Patch] Keep Alive not workwing with mod_proxy (PR38602)

=?iso-8859-1?Q?Pl=FCm=2C_R=FCdiger=2C_VIS?= wrote: -Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht- Von: Jim Jagielski=20 =20 =20 Yeah, but we check to see if we're 1 thread, so in prefork, we drop to single connection workers. Which makes sense to me. To me too. What it's doing is