Jim Jagielski wrote:
So, what do we want to say is our earliest version of APR required
for trunk (and 2.4)??
I'd like for us to really start looking at getting 2.4 out, but that
means some APR dependencies, esp if we want Simple to be viable for
lots of people.
The session stuff needs at
On Oct 1, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
So, what do we want to say is our earliest version of APR required
for trunk (and 2.4)??
I'd like for us to really start looking at getting 2.4 out, but that
means some APR dependencies, esp if we want Simple to be
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Yeah, but do we want to require 1.4, which means backporting the
pollcb stuff, or do we want to require 2.0, which means httpd 2.4
will be pushed out even further...?
I'd say backport the pollcb stuff. httpd v2.3.x alphas are out the door,
while apr v2.x alphas aren't.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
So, what do we want to say is our earliest version of APR required
for trunk (and 2.4)??
I'd like for us to really start looking at getting 2.4 out, but that
means some APR dependencies, esp if we want Simple to be viable
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Yeah, but do we want to require 1.4, which means backporting the
pollcb stuff, or do we want to require 2.0, which means httpd 2.4
will be pushed out even further...?
I'd say backport the pollcb
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Yeah, but do we want to require 1.4, which means backporting the
pollcb stuff, or do we want to require 2.0, which means
On Oct 1, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm
wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Yeah, but do we want to require 1.4, which means backporting the
pollcb
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Oct 1, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
harish kulkarni wrote:
We are planning to use apache in forward proxy mode, but in case the
server response has latency of 2+secs.. we see that to support high
traffic say 5K/sec we require huge number of threads. We see a huge CPU
usage...
Just to take an example to support 3K req/secs we
Hi Paul and others,
We are planning to use apache in forward proxy mode, but in case the server
response has latency of 2+secs.. we see that to support high traffic say
5K/sec we require huge number of threads. We see a huge CPU usage...
Just to take an example to support 3K req/secs we have to
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Bing Swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-30 12:10
Bing Swen wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-28 15:12
Hope you've included 64-bit Windows in mind. Make x64 Windows a
first-class citizen in httpd-2.4.x, please.
How is it not a
Jorge Schrauwen wrote on 2008-10-30 17:03
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Bing Swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-30 12:10
Bing Swen wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-28 15:12
Hope you've included 64-bit Windows in mind. Make x64
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Bing Swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2008-10-30 17:03
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Bing Swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-30 12:10
Bing Swen wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-28
Jorge Schrauwen wrote on 2008-10-30 18:46
biggest problem atm is getting the apr dbd drivers for mysql and such.
(never got that to work)
Personally I'd love to see the httpd project release 64-bit binaries
themselves. But it's a lot of work for not much gain!*
* tests with the early 2.2
On Oct 29, 2008, at 07:32, Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:12:51AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
I've added the Simple MPM to trunk:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/simple/
Great!
- The name. Someone suggest something better than Simple.
I like naming
On Oct 29, 2008, at 07:32, Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:12:51AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
I've added the Simple MPM to trunk:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/simple/
Great!
- The name. Someone suggest something better than Simple.
I like naming
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:12:51AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
I've added the Simple MPM to trunk:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/simple/
Great!
- The name. Someone suggest something better than Simple.
I like naming projects by grepping the dictionary, and
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:12:51AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
I've added the Simple MPM to trunk:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/simple/
Great!
- The name. Someone suggest something better than
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-28 15:12
I've added the Simple MPM to trunk:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/simple/
...
One of the major departures is that it doesn't use any of the functions
from os/unixd/, which I believe is a good long term decision, since I
would
Bing Swen wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-28 15:12
I've added the Simple MPM to trunk:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/simple/
...
One of the major departures is that it doesn't use any of the
functions from os/unixd/, which I believe is a good long term
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-30 12:10
Bing Swen wrote:
Paul Querna wrote on 2008-10-28 15:12
Hope you've included 64-bit Windows in mind. Make x64 Windows a
first-class citizen in httpd-2.4.x, please.
How is it not a first class citizen in 2.2.x?
Here are some reasons:
1. Currently
I built trunk with --with-mpm=simple, and I have found :
* simple_io.c line 111 and 145 cause a build falure with
--enable-maintainer-mode .
* simple_children.c should include simple_children.h.
* simple_io_timeot_cb should be static.
Paul Querna wrote:
What is on purpose:
- SimpleProcCount and SimpleThreadCount. I hate MaxClients,
MinSpareThreads, MaxSpareThreads, ThreadsPerChild, ThreadLimit,
StartServers, StartThreads, and ServerLimit. They are all going to die
in 2.4.
Simplification is good :)
How will the simple
On Oct 28, 2008, at 03:12, Paul Querna wrote:
What is on purpose:
- SimpleProcCount and SimpleThreadCount. I hate MaxClients,
MinSpareThreads, MaxSpareThreads, ThreadsPerChild, ThreadLimit,
StartServers, StartThreads, and ServerLimit. They are all going to
die in 2.4.
Thoughts?
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:12:51 -0700
Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've added the Simple MPM to trunk:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/simple/
One central part of interest (simplified):
int simple_child_loop(simple_core_t *sc)
{
simple_setup_workers(sc);
Takashi Sato wrote:
I built trunk with --with-mpm=simple, and I have found :
* simple_io.c line 111 and 145 cause a build falure with
--enable-maintainer-mode .
* simple_children.c should include simple_children.h.
* simple_io_timeot_cb should be static.
Fixed in trunk, r708599.
Thanks,
Nick Kew wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:12:51 -0700
Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've added the Simple MPM to trunk:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/simple/
One central part of interest (simplified):
int simple_child_loop(simple_core_t *sc)
{
27 matches
Mail list logo
