what does change the entries in proxy_util.c mean?
There are some calls to apr_sockaddr_info_get in proxy_util.c, and I
wasn't really sure whether they should be looking at this flag or not.
In some cases (where we already have an IP address, etc) it is clearly
something that they should
So, any votes? Any thoughts?
Chris Monson wrote:
[PATCH]
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Chris Monson wrote:
(patch)
A couple of comments:
Why not just store whatever flags should be passed in to
apr_sockaddr_info_get()
I have changed it to store the flag itself, rather than an enumeration
of possible settings.
In the code below, we already have an IPv4
I have been starting to make attempts to contribute to this project. In
so doing, I have discovered that I have a lot of questions. I tried to
get the list FAQ, but it said it was empty, so please forgive me if this
information is located elsewhere. I will happily take any pointers to
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I appreciate it!
It's really quite fun to be involved in such a cool project, so I didn't
want my new zeal to generate some related stupidity on my part :)
Thanks again,
C
Good idea. Sorry I didn't do that first.
Thanks for the tip.
C
John K. Sterling wrote:
As a side note, check the archives, this conversation has happened many
times before.
sterling
-- Original Message --
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:44:26 -0700
From: Chris
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Chris Monson wrote:
I have noticed that mod_proxy, in its apr_sockaddr_info_get calls uses
unspecified resolution and sends it no flags. This, of course, allows
the APR to make the decision as to how to resolve the hostname, but it
causes some truly amazing slowdowns when
Also, you should take a look at this thread in the archives starting
last September -- IPv6 capability and name lookup cost -- to see if
somebody brought up some useful points that I can't remember at the
present time.
I read the thread. I am beginning the implementation using IPLookups as
By the way, thanks for taking this on!! This was a missing bit of
reality check in the current support for IPv6. The usual two round
drips to the DNS really sucks.
Done. Where shall I submit the patch? Is it kosher to send it to this
list?
C
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Chris Monson wrote:
Done. Where shall I submit the patch? Is it kosher to send it to this
list?
Absolutely.
(Well, sometimes if the patch is really really big, we have people post it
to a webpage somewhere and just mail the URL to the list
Try looking at the subversion code. It uses APXS and has a fairly
intelligent set of macros to do it. It also looks for and uses
apr-config and apu-config. It's pretty cool.
http://subversion.tigris.org/project_source.html
Good luck. I can also send you the appropriate m4 files if you are
either to a truss/strace and/or a GDB br so we know
what part of the code is looping hanging.
also, can you try disabling proxyreceivebuffersize proxypreservehost
and see if that makes a difference?
TIA
ian.
ps.. raising a bug is also a good choice on a next-action too ;-)
Chris Monson wrote:
I
I have noticed that mod_proxy, in its apr_sockaddr_info_get calls uses
unspecified resolution and sends it no flags. This, of course, allows
the APR to make the decision as to how to resolve the hostname, but it
causes some truly amazing slowdowns when authorities are not
available for
I apologize if this is the wrong forum for this information. I started
with the mod_proxy dev list, and they suggested that the problem was
probably with Apache's filter code, and that I should post the issue here.
I have been working with mod_proxy under Apache 2.0.44 and have been
having
Ian Holsman wrote:
Hi Chris.
can you do me a favor, and put a TCPdump of the interaction somewhere.
and if you could either to a truss/strace and/or a GDB br so we know
what part of the code is looping hanging.
also, can you try disabling proxyreceivebuffersize proxypreservehost
and see if
15 matches
Mail list logo
