On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:42:05PM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Hi,
this bug can be quite annoying because of the resources used by the hung
processes. It happens e.g. under Linux when epoll is used.
The patch from http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42829#c14
has been in
Hello,
mod_auth_plain by Piotr Roszatycki was not working anymore since the 2.2
branch.
Here is a new module based on mod_authn_file and the old mod_auth_plain
It implements a new AuthBasicProvider named file_plain.
It allow relative file path for the password file.
Maybe you are
This is just some ramblings based on some observations, theories, and tests.
Partially devil's advocate as well.
Most of us seem to have convinced our self that high performance network
applications (including web servers) must be asynchronous in order to scale.
Is this still valid? For that
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 12:03:02PM -0500, Akins, Brian wrote:
Most of us seem to have convinced our self that high performance network
applications (including web servers) must be asynchronous in order to scale.
Is this still valid? For that matter, was it ever?
Hmmm, it depends what you mean
As a way to apologize for my 'spamming', I think I've
uncovered the issue. This is either a bug, a known
limitation or a misunderstanding on my part of the
purpose of ProxyTimeout.
Turns out that timeout is set on the socket in two places:
first when it's attempting to get the connection to the
On Jan 18, 2008 2:30 PM, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO it doesn't for the first request of the entity (the request that causes
the entity to be cached)
I'd expect the predominance of large numbers would reduce the impact
of the one-time performance hit...but that conversion away
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:42:05PM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
this bug can be quite annoying because of the resources used by the hung
processes. It happens e.g. under Linux when epoll is used.
The patch from http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42829#c14
has been in Debian
On 01/18/2008 10:29 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 04:17:16PM -0500, Akins, Brian wrote:
For dynamic stuff, X-sendfile works well. (Just really starting to play
with that, liking it so far).
It's not a solve-all though, I mean even though CGI's or whatever
/could/
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 04:17:16PM -0500, Akins, Brian wrote:
For dynamic stuff, X-sendfile works well. (Just really starting to play
with that, liking it so far).
It's not a solve-all though, I mean even though CGI's or whatever
/could/ write their output to a file and then call X-sendfile,
On 1/18/08 2:16 PM, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking for myself, I think writing and using buckets with serf is
more straightforward than our complicated bucket brigade system with
mixed push/pull paradigms.
It very well may be.
Async may be easy. Except when my db
I noticed there's been a delta for a while, the unix packages drop
all the docs .xml files. Have done the same for win32-src.zip and
the .msi installers in this pass.
I also note that in the future, we should drop the .xsl and changed
the roll.sh script. Perhaps .dtd files as well? These all
On 1/18/08 3:07 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not even a consideration,
async is really for dynamic content, proxies, and other non-sendfile
content.
For dynamic stuff, X-sendfile works well. (Just really starting to play
with that, liking it so far).
The proxy that
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 02:31:11PM -0500, Akins, Brian wrote:
On 1/18/08 2:20 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think so, in some environments anyway. If you have a server tuned for
high throughput accross large bandwidth-delay product links then you
have the general
On 1/18/08 2:20 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think so, in some environments anyway. If you have a server tuned for
high throughput accross large bandwidth-delay product links then you
have the general problem of equal-priority threads sitting around with
quite a lot of
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 01:52:02PM -0500, Akins, Brian wrote:
On 1/18/08 12:18 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm, it depends what you mean by scale really. Async doesn't help a
daemon scale in terms of concurrency or throughput, if anything it might
even impede it, but it
On Jan 18, 2008 10:52 AM, Akins, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is why I hate to see a ton of work go into async core if it actually
does very little to help performance (or if it hurts it) and makes writing
modules harder. It braindead simple nowadays to write well behaved high
On 1/18/08 12:18 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm, it depends what you mean by scale really. Async doesn't help a
daemon scale in terms of concurrency or throughput, if anything it might
even impede it, but it certainly can help improve latency and
responsivity greatly. On
[[Resending as I suspect my junk mail filters flagged it
on sending it. :/ However, if this did make it, I apologize
for this duplicate sending.]]
Hi Folks,
I'm trying to get ProxyTimeout to work and having no luck.
I've set up 2 Apache instances in my network. These are
Apache 2.0.59
18 matches
Mail list logo
