*The Problem* :
I am using a function pointer in my WebServer module to call OpenSSL
function - SSL_get_peer_certificate() from the main Apache process. The
function definition is taken from the OpenSSL Library : /libssl.a/ . On
execution, I get the following error in my Apache Error Log file :
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Saturday, January 8, 2005 10:43 PM + Ben Laurie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Errr... mod_backhand?
mod_backhand doesn't support Apache 2.x:
http://www.backhand.org/mod_backhand/FAQ.shtml#question0
Port it?
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
ignore
Hallo,
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm currently working on code that extended the lb method
within the 2.1/2.2 proxy from what is basically a
weighted request count to also be a weighted
traffic count (as measured by bytes transferred)
and a weighted load count (as measured by
Nick Kew wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Laszlo wrote:
Having access to a request_rec *r (ex. http://abc.hu/myapp/abc.xyz),
how can I read the content of abc.xyz (wich contains only XML data)
and generating a response (wich contains only HTML).
You probably want the apache-modules list for this.
I'm using least connections with an Alteon on a recently installd system.
Least connections, whil eperhaps crude, is one of the most effective
methods for load balancing.
The general reason is that over the long haul, it will be putting
conenctions onto those mahcines which are discharging their
Mladen Turk wrote:
Sure, the general idea was to allow different lb methods.
I've started to collect the transferred for various
protocols to be able to do a traffic balancing.
So, there will be an API to allow developers to develop load balancers
without having to muck with the proxy code? If
Jeffrey Burgoyne wrote:
I'm using least connections with an Alteon on a recently installd system.
Least connections, whil eperhaps crude, is one of the most effective
methods for load balancing.
The general reason is that over the long haul, it will be putting
conenctions onto those mahcines which
I have opened a bug report (ASF#32848) and attached the patch.
Anything else I can do to influence the inclusion of my patch into the Apache
2-SSL new dev line?
I built and tested on Solaris 9.
I also have a patch for mod_ssl 2.8.22 for Apache 1.3. Should I go ahead and
open a bug report and
On Jan 11, 2005, at 4:20 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Saturday, January 8, 2005 10:43 PM + Ben Laurie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Errr... mod_backhand?
mod_backhand doesn't support Apache 2.x:
http://www.backhand.org/mod_backhand/FAQ.shtml#question0
Port it?
I think that
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:41:09AM -0500, TAYLOR, TIM (CONTRACTOR) wrote:
I have opened a bug report (ASF#32848) and attached the patch.
Anything else I can do to influence the inclusion of my patch into the
Apache 2-SSL new dev line?
Thanks Tim. I have an adapted version of your patch
That's fine. Thanks for the update.
I did notice that per-dir CA cert stuff was implemented as EXPERIMENTAL in
mod_ssl 2.8.22 and I don't know anyone who uses it. I felt I should patch the
PERDIR code sections just in case.
regards,
tt
317-510-5987
-Original Message-
From: Joe Orton
Stefan Hueneburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe least connection count is also interesting.
However, on Alteon-LB i experienced some kind of weird load pumping
when i used least connection mode.
We found with our configuration, an Alteon in leastconns LB mode can
firehose services if
On Jan 11, 2005, at 9:44 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jan 11, 2005, at 4:20 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Saturday, January 8, 2005 10:43 PM + Ben Laurie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Errr... mod_backhand?
mod_backhand doesn't support Apache 2.x:
Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
Having mod_backhand use mod_proxy isn't very difficult. We implemented
that for a client. I don't understand the comment about the web server
doing stuff. mod_proxy sits inside apache and adheres to the same
limitations do to it architectural position as
On Jan 11, 2005, at 11:00 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
Having mod_backhand use mod_proxy isn't very difficult. We
implemented
that for a client. I don't understand the comment about the web
server
doing stuff. mod_proxy sits inside apache and adheres to the same
Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
If y'all want to build a good load balancer, use APR and stay our of
the Apache server proper completely. It would afford you the
opportunity to scale better as much of the plumbing within Apache that
guides it architectural design can be shed.
Yeah, I've also
Brian Akins wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Sure, the general idea was to allow different lb methods.
I've started to collect the transferred for various
protocols to be able to do a traffic balancing.
So, there will be an API to allow developers to develop load balancers
without having to muck with
Paul Querna wrote:
-There is an external programe (started like a piped log program) that
does active health checking. Every x seconds it checks all the
origin servers and records their status in shared memory.
This is more or less what mod_backhand does. (it is more passive,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=124901
Log:
Rewrite Cookies and other headers in mod_proxy_ajp as configured with
ProxyPassReverse and ProxyPassReverseCookiePath.
-apr_status_t ajp_parse_header(request_rec *r, ajp_msg_t *msg);
+apr_status_t
On Jan 11, 2005, at 12:23 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
-There is an external programe (started like a piped log program)
that
does active health checking. Every x seconds it checks all the
origin servers and records their status in shared memory.
This is more or less what
It is a trivial change to make mod_backhand not can about
announcements as well as not make them.
Even more so if it was integrated with mod_proxy more extensively.
From what I recall, that was my impression as well.
But my comment wasn't directed towards m_b or any other module
specifically,
22 matches
Mail list logo
