On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:52:44PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Yeah, maybe it's time to re-open this discussion... previously,
whenever we thought about adding more functionality to
the config file, it was discouraged because it increases the
complexity of Apache for something that could more
hi
we are using apache 2.0.55 win32 for loadbalancing with mod_proxy /
mod_rewrite
i understand there is a much easier way now with 2.2 which provides
loadbalancing depending on throughput or requestcount
thats a pretty good feature but something that would really kick ass would
be if the proxy
On 12/08/2005 11:59 AM, Matthias Behrens wrote:
[..cut..]
thats a pretty good feature but something that would really kick ass would
be if the proxy would know the cpu-load of every balanceserver
is it possible you could hand the cpuload throu an extra header and restore
it to zere if
Configuration .. make it configurable. by that I mean allowing people to
use LDAP or a DB to hold the configuration files, and not a flat file.
This is mainly intended for large server farms. Currently the main
reason for logging onto a webserver is to change it's configuration (and
bounce)
Brandon Fosdick wrote:
Would it be possible to use something like fam (or kqueue on FreeBSD) and
have httpd notified whenever the config file changes? That would solve
part of the above desire without requiring the extensive changes needed to
go to a db/ldap system.
That could be external to
Brandon Fosdick wrote:
Would it be possible to use something like fam (or kqueue on FreeBSD)
and
have httpd notified whenever the config file changes? That would solve
part of the above desire without requiring the extensive changes needed
to
go to a db/ldap system.
That could be
On Dec 7, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Brandon Fosdick wrote:
Configuration .. make it configurable. by that I mean allowing
people to
use LDAP or a DB to hold the configuration files, and not a flat
file.
This is mainly intended for large server farms. Currently the main
reason for logging onto a
That could be external to httpd. Just have a monitor (or in cfengine,
or whatever) that when the config changes it issues a graceful restart.
Simple and straight-forward.
Oops, I made a typo, and pressed save. poof there goes my website!
IMO, it's a bad idea to automagically restart when
On 12/07/2005 08:18 PM, Brandon Fosdick wrote:
Brandon Fosdick wrote:
[..cut..]
And, to me at least, it seems Intuitively Correct that an app should be
watching it's own config files for changes and then responding
appropriately. I see this as being in the same vein as re-reading config
On Dec 7, 2005, at 3:04 PM, Joost de Heer wrote:
That could be external to httpd. Just have a monitor (or in
cfengine,
or whatever) that when the config changes it issues a graceful
restart.
Simple and straight-forward.
Oops, I made a typo, and pressed save. poof there goes my
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:01:35AM -0800, Brandon Fosdick wrote:
Would it be possible to use something like fam (or kqueue on FreeBSD) and
have httpd notified whenever the config file changes?
We could do the SIGIO trick which diablo does on BSD, though the problem
there is that on other
Joost de Heer wrote:
That could be external to httpd. Just have a monitor (or in cfengine,
or whatever) that when the config changes it issues a graceful restart.
Simple and straight-forward.
Oops, I made a typo, and pressed save. poof there goes my website!
IMO, it's a bad idea to
Paul Querna wrote:
My intention is for this to be a wide open brainstorming thread.
I expect that we will be able to discuss several ideas in much more
detail at the Hackathon next week, but I really want to get all ideas
'on the table'.
Here's my list. Or at least, the partial list that
--- Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My intention is for this to be a wide open
brainstorming thread.
I expect that we will be able to discuss several
ideas in much more
detail at the Hackathon next week, but I really want
to get all ideas
'on the table'.
I have a few things I
if it was possible, to add some statistics to the
mod_cache, to measure the size of the cache, how well
it is being used, as squid has its own
What I did in my private fork was to have stats and storage providers.
A cache stat provider provides only a single function:
apr_status_t
To add my 12 cents, I would like to see the following. (Note that I am
speaking from a mainly Apache 1.3 viewpoint; I'm pretty sure the following
didn't exist in 2.0 when I looked, but I've not checked whether any of these
have made it into 2.2 already)
1. In mod_cgi, an option for the stderr
On 12/3/2005 at 5:07 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Configuration .. make it configurable. by that I mean allowing people
to
use LDAP or a DB to hold the configuration files, and not a flat
file.
This is mainly intended for large server farms. Currently the
Support a sort of dynamic configuration via an admin console, ie
adding / removing proxy directives.
2005/12/5, Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 12/3/2005 at 5:07 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Configuration .. make it configurable. by that I mean allowing
This applies to processes forked off from Apache children servicing
requests, not the Apache children themselves.
So not exactly what I proposed, unless I am understanding that wrong?
If you want to limit the children themselves, then you want the standard
ulimit controls available in your
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 10:30:34AM +0100, Joost de Heer wrote:
This applies to processes forked off from Apache children servicing
requests, not the Apache children themselves.
So not exactly what I proposed, unless I am understanding that wrong?
If you want to limit the children
Hi,
On Sam 03.12.2005 11:36, Paul Querna wrote:
My intention is for this to be a wide open brainstorming thread.
I expect that we will be able to discuss several ideas in much more
detail at the Hackathon next week, but I really want to get all ideas
'on the table'.
my whish is very simple:
On 12/4/05, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 12/3/05, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd also like to brainstorm a better solution to running Rails/Django
applications inside of the httpd process than the SCGI/FastCGI solution
which most people use.
Paul Querna wrote:
My intention is for this to be a wide open brainstorming thread.
I expect that we will be able to discuss several ideas in much more
detail at the Hackathon next week, but I really want to get all ideas
'on the table'.
I have a few things I would like to see, but I am
Hi,
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-12-03 14:56:22]:
* A Perchild MPM/replacement: The SoC perchild-replacement project
didn't work out. We have a basic design that is sound, but we need to
actually write the code.
+1 as a VERY useful thing for 2.2/2.4
I would like to
My intention is for this to be a wide open brainstorming thread.
I expect that we will be able to discuss several ideas in much more
detail at the Hackathon next week, but I really want to get all ideas
'on the table'.
I have a few things I would like to see, but I am sure there are perhaps
Paul Querna wrote:
* Async/Event MPM: Complete Async pipeline for static files. I believe
we can seriously give every existing single-threaded-event-based server
a run for their money on every existing benchmark. Toss in some dynamic
content, and a hybrid Event/Worker has serious
On Saturday 03 December 2005 19:36, Paul Querna wrote:
My intention is for this to be a wide open brainstorming thread.
I expect that we will be able to discuss several ideas in much more
detail at the Hackathon next week, but I really want to get all ideas
'on the table'.
Alas, I shall be
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 11:36:10AM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
* A Perchild MPM/replacement: The SoC perchild-replacement project
didn't work out. We have a basic design that is sound, but we need to
actually write the code.
+1. Could you dig out a reference to the design? I kind of lost
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 11:36:10AM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
* Async/Event MPM: Complete Async pipeline for static files. I believe
we can seriously give every existing single-threaded-event-based server
a run for their money on every existing benchmark. Toss in some dynamic
content, and
--On December 3, 2005 8:52:38 PM + Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* A threaded MPM to become the default: I would like mod_cgid
How about making the MPMs DSOable?
* Build upon the aaa framework to do some more useful things. Two
in particular I'd like, but they are
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On December 3, 2005 8:52:38 PM + Colm MacCarthaigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* A threaded MPM to become the default: I would like mod_cgid
How about making the MPMs DSOable?
++1!
Nick Kew wrote:
On Saturday 03 December 2005 19:36, Paul Querna wrote:
My intention is for this to be a wide open brainstorming thread.
But we don't have a track record of round tuits.
Sort of the reason the thread is interesting, but I'd rather see code
to comment on. Interesting ideas,
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Nick Kew wrote:
On Saturday 03 December 2005 19:36, Paul Querna wrote:
My intention is for this to be a wide open brainstorming thread.
But we don't have a track record of round tuits.
Sort of the reason the thread is interesting, but I'd rather see code
to
An idea, although I have no idea whether this can be done at all, or whether
this has been discussed before:
MaxMemoryPerChild.
Especially with things like PHP, occasionally a child process can 'explode'
and grow very large. As far as I'm aware, the only way to limit child
processes is
--On December 3, 2005 11:57:08 PM +0100 Joost de Heer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An idea, although I have no idea whether this can be done at all, or
whether this has been discussed before:
MaxMemoryPerChild.
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/core.html#rlimitmem
HTH. -- justin
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On December 3, 2005 11:57:08 PM +0100 Joost de Heer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An idea, although I have no idea whether this can be done at all, or
whether this has been discussed before:
MaxMemoryPerChild.
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/core.html#rlimitmem
On Sunday 04 December 2005 00:14, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On December 4, 2005 12:06:40 AM +0100 Joost de Heer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This applies to processes forked off from Apache children servicing
requests, not the Apache children themselves.
So not exactly what I proposed,
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 12:31:31AM +0100, Astrid 'Kess' Keßler wrote:
hm, together with a perchild-like mpm I could imagine a memory limitation per
child process ...
Not really necessary given that the whole point of a perchild-like mpm
is to run vhosts under different user ids, so it should
Paul Querna wrote:
My intention is for this to be a wide open brainstorming thread.
I expect that we will be able to discuss several ideas in much more
detail at the Hackathon next week, but I really want to get all ideas
'on the table'.
I have a few things I would like to see, but I am
On 12/3/05, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd also like to brainstorm a better solution to running Rails/Django
applications inside of the httpd process than the SCGI/FastCGI solution
which most people use.
Out of curiosity, what do you think is wrong with the current FastCGI
method of
Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 12/3/05, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd also like to brainstorm a better solution to running Rails/Django
applications inside of the httpd process than the SCGI/FastCGI solution
which most people use.
Out of curiosity, what do you think is wrong with the
41 matches
Mail list logo
