Hi,
should this be fixed in trunk already? I see some commits in proxy code
based on your ideas Yann, but I'm not sure if they address this
particular problem too.
Jan Kaluza
On 10/17/2013 04:52 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Thomas Eckert
My test setup looks pretty much the same as yours: a simple
node.js server listening on the UDS path, but mine serves
just static content.
On Dec 2, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote:
I had the same inclination as Cristophe but haven't been able to
substantiate
Hi Jan,
I don't think it is fixed in trunk, but I may have missed the commits.
Which ones are you talking about?
Regards,
Yann.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
should this be fixed in trunk already? I see some commits in proxy code
based on your
There hardly seemed any consensus on the patch... It also
seems that it adds more cycles to Apache on the front to
reduce a race condition that can't really be removed.
IMO, a reverse proxy should get out of the way as
quickly as possible.
Plus, if we do this here, shouldn't we do it for
all
It also seems that it adds more cycles to Apache on the front to
reduce a race condition that can't really be removed.
While it's true that the race condition itself cannot be avoided we can
definitely work around the resulting problem situation, e.g. by trying to
open the connection again once
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
There hardly seemed any consensus on the patch... It also
seems that it adds more cycles to Apache on the front to
reduce a race condition that can't really be removed.
I don't think more cycles are added by this patch.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Thomas Eckert
thomas.r.w.eck...@gmail.comwrote:
It also seems that it adds more cycles to Apache on the front to
reduce a race condition that can't really be removed.
While it's true that the race condition itself cannot be avoided we can
definitely work
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
There hardly seemed any consensus on the patch... It also
seems that it adds
Now includes:
the LICENSE in the packaging
also adds a dependency for the libc in use by the building system (to
prevent issues when trying to load a package on AIX 5.3 when it was
packaged on AIX 6.1 (or higher)
uses httpd/httpd as User/Group - and changed in httpd.conf before packaging
sets file
You can't retry all the requests (particularly non idempotent ones), not
even once.
Suppose it is a charged $100 order, you wouldn't like any proxy to double
that because of network problems...
I'm not talking about retrying requests but retrying writing on the socket
after trying to re-open a
The User/Group shouldn't own any of the files. Is there a particular
failure this works around?
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
Now includes:
the LICENSE in the packaging
also adds a dependency for the libc in use by the building system (to
prevent
Thanks for getting back about that. Two days ago I retried and was able
to tease out what appeared to be environmental variance in my numbers .
After modifying the configuration to eliminate cruft as well as
replacing the app with nothing more than a simple 'hello world' type of
responder (over 32
On Dec 5, 2013, at 2:03 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote:
httpd-2.4.6 - w new patches
Requests/sec: 35745.11
Requests/sec: 36763.18
Requests/sec: 36568.09
httpd2.4.6 - original UDS patch
Requests/sec: 24413.15
Requests/sec: 24015.11
Requests/sec: 24346.76
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Thomas Eckert
thomas.r.w.eck...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm not talking about retrying requests but retrying writing on the socket
after trying to re-open a connection. When mod_proxy tries to forward the
client request to the backends and encounters a closed connection
Why should it be daemon/daemon? Better than root/system - imho. Or
nobody/nobody. Those are default accounts, default accounts should never
really own anything.
By choosing an owner I can prepare a separate fileset to setup RBAC, get
the files into the trusted database (tsd).
There are
On 11/14/2013 5:54 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
a) people who want the ability to do filesystem backups without exposing
private keys to the set of admins who can read such backups; or e.g.
stick keys on NFS mounts, a similar requirement there.
b) people who like or are required to follow security
On 12/5/2013 6:17 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
On 11/14/2013 5:54 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
a) people who want the ability to do filesystem backups without exposing
private keys to the set of admins who can read such backups; or e.g.
stick keys on NFS mounts, a similar requirement there.
b) people
17 matches
Mail list logo
