On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov
On Nov 17, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
FWIW, using the optimized rough time from the Event listener thread
within mod_reqtimeout is consistently faster in my testing.
Same here...
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
FWIW, using the optimized rough time from the Event listener thread
within mod_reqtimeout is consistently faster in my testing.
Same here...
Thanks for trying it out; my
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
FWIW, using the optimized rough time from the Event listener thread
within mod_reqtimeout is
On 15.11.2011 20:57, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:32 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 11/15/2011 12:33 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 15 November 2011, Paul Querna wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Stefan Fritschs...@sfritsch.de
wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
On 15.11.2011 20:57, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:32 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 11/15/2011 12:33 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 15 November 2011, Paul Querna
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
On 15.11.2011 20:57, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:32 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 11/15/2011 12:33 PM,
On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
What I am really opposed to is that the LoadModule causes such a
degradation in performance.
I am 100% +1 to adding conf commands to the default configuration in
the httpd.conf, but what I do not like is that having just a
LoadModule with
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
On 15.11.2011 20:57, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:32 PM,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de
wrote:
On
On Wednesday 16 November 2011, Paul Querna wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Rainer Jung
rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
On 15.11.2011 20:57, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:32 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 11/15/2011 12:33 PM, Stefan
On Wednesday 16 November 2011, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
What I am really opposed to is that the LoadModule causes such a
degradation in performance.
In my quick (and maybe not that accurate) tests, the penalty caused
by mod_reqtimeout (1.4%) was smaller than the penalty of not
having
On 11/16/2011 10:20 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
I am 100% +1 to adding conf commands to the default configuration in
the httpd.conf, but what I do not like is that having just a
LoadModule with nothing else causes reqtimeout to do work. It is too
trivial for people to have accidental load modules
Were these results all based on 100% cpu pegged?
On Wednesday 16 November 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Were these results all based on 100% cpu pegged?
Yes, the machine running httpd had both cores at 100%. The machine
running ab had a single core at ~ 70%.
On Wednesday 16 November 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 11/16/2011 10:20 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
I am 100% +1 to adding conf commands to the default configuration
in the httpd.conf, but what I do not like is that having just a
LoadModule with nothing else causes reqtimeout to do work.
On 11/16/2011 5:06 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Wednesday 16 November 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Will people be confused by a directive that does nothing when
placed in a named vhost? Or should this just be global-only and
forget about it? It would be nice to cripple this module, say,
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, pque...@apache.org wrote:
Author: pquerna
Date: Tue Nov 15 15:49:19 2011
New Revision: 1202255
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1202255view=rev
Log:
disable mod_reqtimeout if not configured
Why that? We have just changed the default to be enabled in r1199447 and
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, pque...@apache.org wrote:
Author: pquerna
Date: Tue Nov 15 15:49:19 2011
New Revision: 1202255
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1202255view=rev
Log:
disable mod_reqtimeout if not configured
On Tuesday 15 November 2011, Paul Querna wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, pque...@apache.org wrote:
Author: pquerna
Date: Tue Nov 15 15:49:19 2011
New Revision: 1202255
URL:
On 11/15/2011 12:33 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 15 November 2011, Paul Querna wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Stefan Fritschs...@sfritsch.de
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, pque...@apache.org wrote:
Author: pquerna
Date: Tue Nov 15 15:49:19 2011
New Revision: 1202255
URL:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:32 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 11/15/2011 12:33 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 15 November 2011, Paul Querna wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Stefan Fritschs...@sfritsch.de
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, pque...@apache.org
22 matches
Mail list logo
