Re: 2.4.27

On 2017-07-18 14:25, Eric Covener wrote: > Argh, not right, missed the other return stmt. > > It seems like proxy_trans will return OK to translate_name() and not > let mod_rewrite in non-perdir run at all. It is rigged to run before > mod_rewrite. Ok, it seems that my rewrite issue has gained

Re: 2.4.27

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek >> wrote: >>> >>> Have you seen this sentence? >>> > So

Re: 2.4.27

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek > wrote: >> >> Have you seen this sentence? >> So ProxyPass has precedence over other directives. It is evaluated first. This can

Re: 2.4.27

On 2017-07-18 12:54, Yann Ylavic wrote: > You should probably re-check with latest 2.4.27, where some > regressions with regard to php-fpm (since 2.4.20) where finally > addressed (see https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61202). I did. 2.4.27 fixed a proxy_fcgi problem and nextcloud:

Re: 2.4.27

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek wrote: > > Have you seen this sentence? > >>> So ProxyPass has precedence over other directives. It is evaluated >>> first. This can lead to a number of problems. ProxyPass has no particular precedence over other

Re: 2.4.27

Hi David, Thanks for your reply, but I have already established in my previous email what the order of evaluation is. Have you seen this sentence? >> So ProxyPass has precedence over other directives. It is evaluated >> first. This can lead to a number of problems. On 2017-07-18 09:33, David

Re: 2.4.27

You need to use SetHandler. You can't use rewrites with ProxyPass because of the order of evaluation. Example config: Define php-fpm unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi://php-fpm # make sure the proxy is registered with the unix socket; we can then use just "fcgi://php-fpm" in proxy and rewrites

Re: 2.4.27

On 2017-07-17 03:50, Luca Toscano wrote: > mod-proxy-fcgi is the preferred solution over mod-fcgi, and we have > documentation about it. Any specific reason to use libapache2-mod-fcgid? > (asking for curiosity and/or to decide if a doc update is needed :) I am using mod_proxy_fcgi exactly for

Re: 2.4.27

> "LT" == Luca Toscano writes: LT> mod-proxy-fcgi is the preferred solution over mod-fcgi, and we have LT> documentation about it. Any specific reason to use libapache2-mod-fcgid? LT> (asking for curiosity and/or to decide if a doc update is needed :) It was all I

Re: 2.4.27

Hi James and Helmut, 2017-07-17 0:59 GMT+02:00 Helmut K. C. Tessarek : > On 2017-07-16 18:41, James Cloos wrote: > > And I've not found any *working* documentation on how to switch to using > > php7.0-fpm and libapache2-mod-fcgid. > mod-proxy-fcgi is the preferred solution

Re: 2.4.27

On 2017-07-16 18:41, James Cloos wrote: > And I've not found any *working* documentation on how to switch to using > php7.0-fpm and libapache2-mod-fcgid. Yea, the documentation on https://wiki.apache.org/httpd/PHP-FPM is also flawed. e.g. if you use the proxy option enablereuse=on in a

Re: 2.4.27

> Jim Riggs writes: > See previous discussion in the "2.4.27" thread, specifically: > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/bae472cadaeeb761b88bb4569cc0b7d87bc2dcb2fbcbf472d895f32e@%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E I did see that after my initial reply. Still anoying. And

Re: 2.4.27

> On 11 Jul 2017, at 11:46, James Cloos wrote: > >> "JJ" == Jim Jagielski writes: > > JJ> *) mod_http2: disable and give warning when mpm_prefork is encountered. > The server will > JJ> continue to work, but HTTP/2 will no longer be negotiated.

Re: 2.4.27

> "JJ" == Jim Jagielski writes: JJ> *) mod_http2: disable and give warning when mpm_prefork is encountered. The server will JJ> continue to work, but HTTP/2 will no longer be negotiated. [Stefan Eissing] Why break h2 w/ prefork. AIUI, one still needs to use

Re: 2.4.27

On 2017-07-11 08:55, David Zuelke wrote: > That PHP bug affects parsing of PHP-FPM's config file. It has nothing > to do with the FastCGI interface or its runtime behavior. Nope, it also fixed a web application for me. see https://github.com/nextcloud/server/issues/5660 -- regards Helmut K. C.

Re: 2.4.27

Am 11.07.2017 um 14:55 schrieb David Zuelke: On 10. Jul 2017, at 16:04, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 06.07.2017 um 19:28 schrieb Jacob Champion: Administrators using prefork who would like to switch to HTTP/2 in the future need to understand the limitations of the

Re: 2.4.27

On 10. Jul 2017, at 16:04, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 06.07.2017 um 19:28 schrieb Jacob Champion: >> Administrators using prefork who would like to switch to HTTP/2 in the >> future need to understand the limitations of the prefork architecture they >> have selected.

Re: 2.4.27

On 06 Jul 2017, at 5:15 PM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > This is not a bug, it is the collision of the processing models. > > So, I think disabling it prevent user from shooting themselves in the foot. > If you are on prefork, you'd want the 6 parallel HTTP/1.1

Re: 2.4.27

Am 06.07.2017 um 19:28 schrieb Jacob Champion: Administrators using prefork who would like to switch to HTTP/2 in the future need to understand the limitations of the prefork architecture they have selected. And sure, our users can request that we implement a solution that "just works" with

Re: 2.4.27

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > Administrators using prefork who would like to switch to HTTP/2 in the > future need to understand the limitations of the prefork architecture they > have selected. And sure, our users can request that we implement a

Re: 2.4.27

On 07/06/2017 10:09 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: with removing mpm_prefork support for H2 you kill HTTP2 support for a lot of production setups which may consider switch to H2 in the future and for sure not rework there whole configuration but put a proxy like Trafficserver in front and forget

Re: 2.4.27

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek wrote: > On 2017-07-06 13:09, Reindl Harald wrote: >> with removing mpm_prefork support for H2 you kill HTTP2 support for a >> lot of production setups which may consider switch to H2 in the future >> and for sure not

Re: 2.4.27

On 2017-07-06 13:09, Reindl Harald wrote: > with removing mpm_prefork support for H2 you kill HTTP2 support for a > lot of production setups which may consider switch to H2 in the future > and for sure not rework there whole configuration but put a proxy like > Trafficserver in front and forget

Re: 2.4.27

in the >> > foot. If you are on prefork, you'd want the 6 parallel HTTP/1.1 >> > connections, not h2. >> > >> > Does this make sense? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Stefan >> > >> > PS. Yes, I know that one /

Re: 2.4.27

Am 06.07.2017 um 19:02 schrieb William A Rowe Jr: +1 to removing support of mom prefork. I'd prefer it still start and if configured, with an [error] level alert in the logs and simply be disabled. Server must start when module is loaded but not configured, e.g. in test framework, IMO with

Re: 2.4.27

ke sense? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Stefan > > > > PS. Yes, I know that one /could/ make parallel processes work in prefork > by placing the h2 dispatching in a parent process. If someone wants to > implement that, be my guest. > > > > > >> Am 06.0

Re: 2.4.27

> On Jul 6, 2017, at 11:15 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: > > Hej, > > I tried to gather some discussion about this. Should have polled this mailing > list. You can read most of it here: https://github.com/icing/mod_h2/issues/142 > > tl;dr > > I had several

Re: 2.4.27 T ... holding off

On 07/06/2017 08:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Due to the questions around lua and apr_table and the change regarding http2 and prefork, doing a T of 2.4.27 right now does not seem prudent. I am holding off until we determine what to do about both "issues" IMO we are good to go with mod_lua.

Re: 2.4.27

ss. If someone wants to implement > that, be my guest. > > >> Am 06.07.2017 um 16:55 schrieb Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl>: >> >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] >>> Sent: woensdag

Re: 2.4.27

>> Sent: woensdag 5 juli 2017 18:49 >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org >> Subject: Re: 2.4.27 >> >> These are just the fixes/regressions noted in CHANGES: >> >> Changes with Apache 2.4.27 >> >> *) mod_lua: Improve compatibility with Lua 5.1, 5.2 an

Re: 2.4.27

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Bert Huijben wrote: >> *) mod_http2: disable and give warning when mpm_prefork is >> encountered. The server will >> continue to work, but HTTP/2 will no longer be negotiated. [Stefan > Eissing] > > Can somebody point me to the reasoning

RE: 2.4.27

> -Original Message- > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] > Sent: woensdag 5 juli 2017 18:49 > To: dev@httpd.apache.org > Subject: Re: 2.4.27 > > These are just the fixes/regressions noted in CHANGES: > > Changes with Apache 2.4.27 > >

Re: 2.4.27

Thank you Jim. On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 12:48:48PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > These are just the fixes/regressions noted in CHANGES: > > Changes with Apache 2.4.27 > > *) mod_lua: Improve compatibility with Lua 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. > PR58188, PR60831, PR61245. [Rainer Jung] > > *)

Re: 2.4.27

These are just the fixes/regressions noted in CHANGES: Changes with Apache 2.4.27 *) mod_lua: Improve compatibility with Lua 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. PR58188, PR60831, PR61245. [Rainer Jung] *) mod_http2: disable and give warning when mpm_prefork is encountered. The server will

Re: 2.4.27

On 07/03/2017 04:45 AM, Eric Covener wrote: +1 +1 --Jacob

Re: 2.4.27

On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 07:33:01AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Anyone opposed to a quick T and release of 2.4.27 within > the next week? Will this be a release primarily addressing the open fast cgi regression or are the additional security concerns with 2.4.26? A quick note would help with

Re: 2.4.27

+1 On Jul 3, 2017 6:33 AM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > Anyone opposed to a quick T and release of 2.4.27 within > the next week? >

Re: 2.4.27

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > +1 > > (read: all for it to happen) +1

Re: 2.4.27

> Am 03.07.2017 um 13:33 schrieb Jim Jagielski : > > Anyone opposed to a quick T and release of 2.4.27 within > the next week? +1 (read: all for it to happen)