Re: Status for 2.4.20

[Noel Butler]

On 26/03/2016 13:32, Reindl Harald wrote:

Am 26.03.2016 um 04:13 schrieb Noel Butler:

On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler  
wrote:



as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push
with a release often mentality

AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any
pending release, so lets get house in order  S T A B L E , then 
worry

about releases, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set
programs to release every 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready
or not…..


It sounds like you’re making drama where there is none.


sounds like you only look at this from one perspective, and thats not 
of

the users, especially, the larger users.


if it has no relevant bugfixes for you - just don't upgrade - so what
why should others wait for probably relevant fixes longer just because
you are annoyed by an update nobody is forcing you to install?



*yawn*

--
If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you best
first read  http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/

Re: Status for 2.4.20

[Reindl Harald]

Am 26.03.2016 um 04:13 schrieb Noel Butler:

On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote:

On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler  wrote:


as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push
with a release often mentality

AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any
pending release, so lets get house in order  S T A B L E , then worry
about releases, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set
programs to release every 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready
or not…..


It sounds like you’re making drama where there is none.


sounds like you only look at this from one perspective, and thats not of
the users, especially, the larger users.


if it has no relevant bugfixes for you - just don't upgrade - so what
why should others wait for probably relevant fixes longer just because 
you are annoyed by an update nobody is forcing you to install?





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Status for 2.4.20

[Noel Butler]

On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote:

On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler  wrote:

as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push 
with a release often mentality


AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any 
pending release, so lets get house in order  S T A B L E , then worry 
about releases, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set 
programs to release every 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready or 
not…..


It sounds like you’re making drama where there is none.


sounds like you only look at this from one perspective, and thats not of 
the users, especially, the larger users.




--
If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you best
first read  http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/

Re: modify request_rec->args

[Justin Kennedy]

I was able to get it to work, by modifying r->args directly. Not sure why
changing the pointer didn't work, but maybe there was a flaw in my testing.
Thanks for the help.

On 25 March 2016 at 11:24, Eric Covener  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Justin Kennedy
>  wrote:
> > The plan is for the module to do other things, this is just the first
> step.
> > Any suggestions? Thank you.
>
>
> It should work. Who sees the unchanged query string? I think it exists
> in apr_uri_t form somewhere too.
>
> --
> Eric Covener
> cove...@gmail.com
>

Re: modify request_rec->args

[Eric Covener]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Justin Kennedy
 wrote:
> The plan is for the module to do other things, this is just the first step.
> Any suggestions? Thank you.


It should work. Who sees the unchanged query string? I think it exists
in apr_uri_t form somewhere too.

-- 
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com

Re: modify request_rec->args

[Justin Kennedy]

Hi Sorin,

The plan is for the module to do other things, this is just the first step.
Any suggestions? Thank you.

On 25 March 2016 at 05:30, Sorin Manolache  wrote:

> On 2016-03-25 00:59, Justin Kennedy wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a simple module, with just a quick_hander, it's sole function is to
>> check if there is a specific key=value on the query string, and modify the
>> value, so it gets picked up by a separate module.
>>
>> For example: if "foo=1" is in r->args, then replace it with "foo=0",
>> decline the request so it gets picked up by the other module.
>>
>> In my first attempt, I created a new string and assigned the pointer to
>> r->args, but it doesn't seem to "stick" when it gets to the second module.
>> Do I have to modify r->args directly, without changing the pointer? It's
>> been awhile since I've worked with C strings.
>>
>>
> You don't need a module to do that. You can use some mod_rewrite
> directives that you place inside your  or :
>
> RewriteEngine On
>
> RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^(|.*&)foo=([^&]*)(&.*|$)
> RewriteRule (.*) $1?%1foo=new_value%3
>
> --
> Sorin
>
>


-- 
Justin Kennedy
Software Developer
506 645 1195
888 406 0624

Re: mod_status Total Accesses with 2.4.20

[Stefan Eissing]

Steffen, thanks for testing and giving the numbers. I hope that 1.4.5 is even a 
bit better than  1.4.4. 

> Am 25.03.2016 um 11:11 schrieb Steffen :
> 
> Build today Branches 2.4.x : mod_http2 (v1.4.5, nghttp2 1.8.0), 
> initializing...
> 
> The statistics graphs Total Accesses are fine again, no regression over 
> 2.4.18 anymore.
> 
> Btw.
> Sofar that the memory footprint with 1.4.4 was far better over 1.2.8.
> 
> I keep an eye on 1.4.5
> 
> Mod_http2 1.4.4 (2.4.19) avarage ~100MB peaks with ~180MB
> Mod_http2 1.0.11 (2.4.18) average ~100 MB peaks with ~200 MB
> with 1.2.8 average ~200 MB with peaks ~600 MB
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steffen
>  
>> On Thursday 24/03/2016 at 17:48, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>> Fix in 2.4.x: r1736465
>> 
>>*) mod_http2: fix for missing score board updates on request count, fix 
>> for
>>   memory leak on slave connection reuse.
>>   
>> Happy Easter,
>> 
>>Stefan
>> 
>>> Am 24.03.2016 um 17:17 schrieb Stefan Eissing 
>>> :
>>> 
>>> Yes, that is how it worked and should soon work again.
>>> 
 Am 24.03.2016 um 16:57 schrieb William A Rowe Jr :
 
 The inner http2 response to the outer h1 upgrade request remains a 
 single request IMHO. Within that h2 collection of streams, each of
 the subsequent h2 requests should then be counted individually.
 
 On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Yann Ylavic  wrote:
 Should the scoreboard really account for both h2 and inner h1
 connections in the same counter?
 It seems to me that they should be distinguish-ed/able.
 
 On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Stefan Eissing
  wrote:
> Found it. Slave connections cleared their scoreboard handle too early 
> (and unneccessary) so that the update simply did not happen.
> 
> Fix will be in trunk/2.4.x soonish..
> 
>> Am 24.03.2016 um 14:05 schrieb Stefan Eissing 
>> :
>> 
>> Quick test: http/2 connections are not counted here. checking...
>> 
>>> Am 24.03.2016 um 14:02 schrieb Steffen :
>>> 
>>> Using server-status?auto.
>>> 
>>> Now since running with 2.4.20-dev my statistics graphs shows less Total 
>>> Accesses.
>>> 
>>> Is it not counting http/1.1 or http/2 in Total Accesses ?
>>> 
>>> Steffen
> 

Re: mod_status Total Accesses with 2.4.20

[Steffen]

Build today Branches 2.4.x : mod_http2 (v1.4.5, nghttp2 1.8.0), 
initializing...


The statistics graphs Total Accesses are fine again, no regression 
over 2.4.18 anymore.


Btw.
Sofar that the memory footprint with 1.4.4 was far better over 1.2.8.

I keep an eye on 1.4.5

Mod_http2 1.4.4 (2.4.19) avarage ~100MB peaks with ~180MB
Mod_http2 1.0.11 (2.4.18) average ~100 MB peaks with ~200 MB
with 1.2.8 average ~200 MB with peaks ~600 MB

Thanks,

Steffen



On Thursday 24/03/2016 at 17:48, Stefan Eissing  wrote:

Fix in 2.4.x: r1736465

   *) mod_http2: fix for missing score board updates on request count, 
fix for

 memory leak on slave connection reuse.

Happy Easter,

   Stefan



Am 24.03.2016 um 17:17 schrieb Stefan Eissing 
:


Yes, that is how it worked and should soon work again.



Am 24.03.2016 um 16:57 schrieb William A Rowe Jr 
:


The inner http2 response to the outer h1 upgrade request remains a
single request IMHO.  Within that h2 collection of streams, each of
the subsequent h2 requests should then be counted individually.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Yann Ylavic  
wrote:

Should the scoreboard really account for both h2 and inner h1
connections in the same counter?
It seems to me that they should be distinguish-ed/able.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Stefan Eissing
 wrote:


Found it. Slave connections cleared their scoreboard handle too early 
(and unneccessary) so that the update simply did not happen.


Fix will be in trunk/2.4.x soonish..



Am 24.03.2016 um 14:05 schrieb Stefan Eissing 
:


Quick test: http/2 connections are not counted here. checking...



Am 24.03.2016 um 14:02 schrieb Steffen :

Using  server-status?auto.

Now since running with 2.4.20-dev my statistics graphs shows  less  
Total Accesses.


Is it not counting http/1.1 or http/2 in Total Accesses ?

Steffen

Re: Status for 2.4.20

[Graham Leggett]

On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler  wrote:

> as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push with a 
> release often mentality
> 
> AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any pending 
> release, so lets get house in order  S T A B L E , then worry about releases, 
> jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set programs to release every 
> 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready or not…..

It sounds like you’re making drama where there is none.

We have a release process designed to catch problems before they reach the 
public. That release process caught a problem, and that problem is being dealt 
with as per that release process. The system is working, nothing to see here.

Regards,
Graham
—

Re: Status for 2.4.20

[Noel Butler]

On 23/03/2016 22:27, Jim Jagielski wrote:



I see your point and have no intent or desire to flame.

Release Often is hardly a Bad Thing, at least IMHO. When the
time is right for a release, then we release. It seemed a
good time, again IMHO.

My opinion that "this shit will happen" when, despite lots of
notice of intent to tag, and reminders to test, etc.. people
simply DON'T, wait for the test tarball, find breakage, and
then apply major restructure/refactor "at the last minute".

Sure, stuff that like occasionally will happen, and it is,
after all, why we create test tarballs and call for a vote.
But when it becomes the rule instead of the exception, then
we have an issue w/ the process and the workflow.

Frequent release, IMHO, are an indication of health and
project vitality. When Apache httpd is suffering from the



You also need to look at it from the side of system admins, not just as 
coder.


Many admins see frequent releases as something that's bug riddled

You don't hear them saying the same about other software, eg: postfix, 
which releases not so frequently (though puts new things in the unstable 
branch)


Dovecot is a great example of release often with F-ups, and it doesn't 
take much to see that it has problems which need addressing soon after 
each release, phpmyadmin releases often, so often, even Marc got sick of 
it and decided there would be minimum monthly updates, instead of 
bi-weekly updates, I know admins running phpmyadmin thats over a year 
old because they got sick of upgrading every few days.


So it works both ways, releasing every 5 or 6 months shows an active 
_stable_ project, evervy month or two and it raises alarms.


But thats just my opinion which does tend to be a general consensus on 
many system admin lists/irc chans.



--
If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you best
first read  http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/

Re: modify request_rec->args

[Sorin Manolache]

On 2016-03-25 00:59, Justin Kennedy wrote:

Hello,

I have a simple module, with just a quick_hander, it's sole function is to
check if there is a specific key=value on the query string, and modify the
value, so it gets picked up by a separate module.

For example: if "foo=1" is in r->args, then replace it with "foo=0",
decline the request so it gets picked up by the other module.

In my first attempt, I created a new string and assigned the pointer to
r->args, but it doesn't seem to "stick" when it gets to the second module.
Do I have to modify r->args directly, without changing the pointer? It's
been awhile since I've worked with C strings.



You don't need a module to do that. You can use some mod_rewrite 
directives that you place inside your  or :


RewriteEngine On

RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^(|.*&)foo=([^&]*)(&.*|$)
RewriteRule (.*) $1?%1foo=new_value%3

--
Sorin

Re: modify request_rec->args

[Luca Toscano]

Hello Justin!

2016-03-25 0:59 GMT+01:00 Justin Kennedy :

> Hello,
>
> I have a simple module, with just a quick_hander, it's sole function is to
> check if there is a specific key=value on the query string, and modify the
> value, so it gets picked up by a separate module.
>
> For example: if "foo=1" is in r->args, then replace it with "foo=0",
> decline the request so it gets picked up by the other module.
>
> In my first attempt, I created a new string and assigned the pointer to
> r->args, but it doesn't seem to "stick" when it gets to the second module.
> Do I have to modify r->args directly, without changing the pointer? It's
> been awhile since I've worked with C strings.
>
>
Have you read
https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/developer/modguide.html#handling? There
is an interesting section about memory management and an example about
query strings.

Hope that helps!

Luca