Re: regarding httpd.h
The defines in httpd.h all specify defaults, for example if you don't compile with --prefix= On Monday, October 22, 2001, at 05:47 PM, hiten pandya wrote: > hi all, > i was wondering.. that... why do we have fixed paths in httpd.h > such as the one for define statements > > thanks, > > regards, > hiten pandya > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > __ > Free E-mail - Lycos UK - http://www.lycos.co.uk > Get your domain for £9.90 - > http://lycos.uk.domainnames.com/default.asp?caller=lycos_ef > Play now to win £1 Million - > http://www.thedailydraw.com/mainframe.cfm?source=lycos > >
Re: RES: IncreaseStartServers
What were your original settings? The defaults?
On Monday, September 3, 2001, at 05:48 PM, Daniel Abad wrote:
> So, what do you suggest?
>
> -Mensagem original-----
> De: George Schlossnagle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Enviada em: Segunda-feira, 3 de Setembro de 2001 18:52
> Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'Justin Erenkrantz '
> Assunto: Re: IncreaseStartServers
>
>
> If you set StartServers to 300, but MaxClients (whihc should probably be
> called MaxServers) to 256, how will that ever be satisfied. You'll
> always reach MaxClients immediately on startup
>
> On Monday, September 3, 2001, at 04:45 PM, Daniel Abad wrote:
>
>> Don't you think that is too much??
>>
>> [Mon Sep 3 17:32:12 2001] [error] server reached MaxClients setting,
>> consider raising the MaxClients setting
>>
>>
>> In my httpd.conf:
>>
>> MaxClients = 256
>> Start Servers = 300 ( It was 5, I increased just for testing)
>> MinSpareServers = 20 (")
>> MaxSpareServers = 800 (")
>>
>>
>> I can see at my access_log that one of my virtual domains is having a
>> lot of
>> access, but it looks like normal...
>>
>> what else now??
>>
>> Tks for your help.
>> Daniel
>>
>> -Original
>> essage-
>> From: Justin Erenkrantz
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 3/9/2001 17:28
>> Subject: Re: IncreaseStartServers
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 05:16:33PM -0300, Daniel Abad wrote:
>>> What does it means?? Is it an attack??
>>>
>>> [Mon Sep 3 17:04:22 2001] [info] server seems busy, (you may need to
>>> increase StartServers, or Min/MaxSpareServers), spawning 16 children,
>>> there are 0 idle, and 35 total children
>>
>> What this means is that Apache is detecting that it doesn't not have
>> enough children to service all incoming requests. Therefore, it is
>> increasing the number of children to handle the load.
>>
>> I would look at your access logs or look at mod_status (ExtendedInfo
>> enabled) to see what URLs are being requested. It may be an
>> attack, or just that you have been /.ed. =-) -- justin
Re: IncreaseStartServers
If you set StartServers to 300, but MaxClients (whihc should probably be
called MaxServers) to 256, how will that ever be satisfied. You'll
always reach MaxClients immediately on startup
On Monday, September 3, 2001, at 04:45 PM, Daniel Abad wrote:
> Don't you think that is too much??
>
> [Mon Sep 3 17:32:12 2001] [error] server reached MaxClients setting,
> consider raising the MaxClients setting
>
>
> In my httpd.conf:
>
> MaxClients = 256
> Start Servers = 300 ( It was 5, I increased just for testing)
> MinSpareServers = 20 (")
> MaxSpareServers = 800 (")
>
>
> I can see at my access_log that one of my virtual domains is having a
> lot of
> access, but it looks like normal...
>
> what else now??
>
> Tks for your help.
> Daniel
>
> -Original
> essage-
> From: Justin Erenkrantz
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 3/9/2001 17:28
> Subject: Re: IncreaseStartServers
>
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 05:16:33PM -0300, Daniel Abad wrote:
>> What does it means?? Is it an attack??
>>
>> [Mon Sep 3 17:04:22 2001] [info] server seems busy, (you may need to
>> increase StartServers, or Min/MaxSpareServers), spawning 16 children,
>> there are 0 idle, and 35 total children
>
> What this means is that Apache is detecting that it doesn't not have
> enough children to service all incoming requests. Therefore, it is
> increasing the number of children to handle the load.
>
> I would look at your access logs or look at mod_status (ExtendedInfo
> enabled) to see what URLs are being requested. It may be an
> attack, or just that you have been /.ed. =-) -- justin
Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0
> In contrast, with an 11,000-line implementation like mod_gzip, it's > much less likely that other developers will be able to troubleshoot > the code quickly if it breaks while the original authors are on > vacation. A quick perusal of thesource for the 1.3 version of mod_gzip (which I've been happily using for 3 weeks now), leads me to believe that 90% of the 11,000 lines are debug code #ifdef'd out.
Re: [Fwd: [Spread-users] send text to spread group from command line?]
Makes sense. Still it would be nice to be able to run core_error_log conditionally. So that I can send my logs to spread, send an SNMP trap and not log to disk, because I confirmed I succeeded in one of the first two. That's why I think it should be run last (except perhaps a fatal level error logger at the head of the bunch). The point is that I don't want to unconditionally send logs to /dev/null, but only if I succeeded in sending them with my user-defined method. - Original Message - From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "George Schlossnagle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:33 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Spread-users] send text to spread group from command line?] > On Monday 27 August 2001 08:14, George Schlossnagle wrote: > > Hmmm... I undesrtand you concern. It might be nice to have a 'panic' type > > log. Still, implementing a RUN_FIRST hook has the benefit of saying 'Try > > and log however you want, and if you fail, then fall onto core_logging'. > > Sometimes people don't want redundancy in their logs, sometimes you want to > > be guaranteed you have one copy of it somewhere without always having 3 > > copies. > > I understand this. The problem is that a RUN_FIRST removes any level > of redundancy. A RUN_ALL allows the server admin to setup as much > redundancy as they want. If you want to log to just spread, then set > ErrorLog to /dev/null. If it is a RUN_FIRST, and I want to log to spread, > and send an SNMP trap whenever I get a critical error, how do I do that? > > This needs to be a RUN_ALL. > > Ryan > > > The specific instance I see for this is error logging via spread. It would > > be swell to be able to just dump error logs to spread, and write to disk if > > and only if there was a problem (in which case, you have the logging module > > return a DECLINED and then you log to disk.) Implementing the hook where I > > did also allows you to add a run-first panic log hook that always logs > > fatal errors to disk, and returns DECLINED to let the rest of the handlers > > run. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > George > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "George Schlossnagle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:08 AM > > Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Spread-users] send text to spread group from command > > line?] > > > > > On Monday 27 August 2001 07:26, George Schlossnagle wrote: > > > > For better or for worse, there are alot of folks who would prefer to > > > > turn > > > > > > off local error logging completely, and do all logging via a > > > > distributed mechanism. Actually, I was also considering whether it > > > > would be better > > > > to > > > > > > do a AP_IMPLEMENT_HOOK_RUN_FIRST, so that you can /truly/ override the > > > > internal logging mechanism safely. Would that fit people's > > > > safety/flexibility concerns better? > > > > > > There are still ways to disable the logging to the disk, but I am > > > > concerned that > > > > > if you allow modules to run before the core's error logging mechanism, > > > > then > > > > > you take the very real chance that you will never see any logs, ever. > > > > > > Also, this should not be a RUN_FIRST, because that removes any redundancy > > > in the system at all. > > > > > > Ryan > > > > > > __ > > > Ryan Bloom[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > > -- > > __ > Ryan Bloom[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- >
Re: [Fwd: [Spread-users] send text to spread group from command line?]
Hmmm... I undesrtand you concern. It might be nice to have a 'panic' type log. Still, implementing a RUN_FIRST hook has the benefit of saying 'Try and log however you want, and if you fail, then fall onto core_logging'. Sometimes people don't want redundancy in their logs, sometimes you want to be guaranteed you have one copy of it somewhere without always having 3 copies. The specific instance I see for this is error logging via spread. It would be swell to be able to just dump error logs to spread, and write to disk if and only if there was a problem (in which case, you have the logging module return a DECLINED and then you log to disk.) Implementing the hook where I did also allows you to add a run-first panic log hook that always logs fatal errors to disk, and returns DECLINED to let the rest of the handlers run. Thoughts? George - Original Message - From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "George Schlossnagle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Spread-users] send text to spread group from command line?] > > On Monday 27 August 2001 07:26, George Schlossnagle wrote: > > For better or for worse, there are alot of folks who would prefer to turn > > off local error logging completely, and do all logging via a distributed > > mechanism. Actually, I was also considering whether it would be better to > > do a AP_IMPLEMENT_HOOK_RUN_FIRST, so that you can /truly/ override the > > internal logging mechanism safely. Would that fit people's > > safety/flexibility concerns better? > > There are still ways to disable the logging to the disk, but I am concerned that > if you allow modules to run before the core's error logging mechanism, then > you take the very real chance that you will never see any logs, ever. > > Also, this should not be a RUN_FIRST, because that removes any redundancy > in the system at all. > > Ryan > > __ > Ryan Bloom[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- >
Re: [Fwd: [Spread-users] send text to spread group from command line?]
For better or for worse, there are alot of folks who would prefer to turn off local error logging completely, and do all logging via a distributed mechanism. Actually, I was also considering whether it would be better to do a AP_IMPLEMENT_HOOK_RUN_FIRST, so that you can /truly/ override the internal logging mechanism safely. Would that fit people's safety/flexibility concerns better? George - Original Message - From: "Ben Laurie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Apache List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Spread-users] send text to spread group from command line?] > Ryan Bloom wrote: > > > > I would. But I have a very good reason. We already have the same > > basic idea, but done a bit safer. Basically, we have a log_error hook, > > but it is run at the end of log_error_core, so that we are sure that we > > always get the error in the error_log, even if we don't get it anyplace > > else. There are some minor tweaks that should be made to the > > current hook, because right now it actually sends out too much > > information, like the timestamp. But, it should handle what George wants > > just fine. > > I don't see why this is any safer than George's proposal, though - > indeed, IMO, his is more elegant since it makes it easier for someone > who really wants to disable the standard error logging to be able to do > so. > > Cheers, > > Ben. > > -- > http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html > > "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he > doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff >
