Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
Does the event MPM work on Windows? Or is Apache on Windows still limited to the winnt MPM? If so, doesn't this leave Apache on Windows /far /behind other platforms when it comes to threads required for a given load? I guess it doesn't matter *that* much until the event MPM and mod_ssl work out their differences such that one can reduce the threads required when HTTPS is used. For those who use a lot of HTTPS, the event MPM doesn't seem to buy one anything for now, right? On 2/21/2012 1:00 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/20/2012 8:04 AM, Jess Holle wrote: Ok, issues with all mod_ssl would be a big problem. If you needed to do DisableWin32AcceptEx, though, then something was already not quite right. What you mean by mod_ssl on a port, though? You just mean running an HTTPS listener right? Precisely. mod_ssl does not interact well (expects its bucket read to be blocking) against the incomplete response created by a 'data-less' AcceptEx or accept(). There are a ton of weird variations in which blocking states are inherited from a listening socket to an AcceptEx socket vs an accept socket on Windows. That's where the problem is, and those in a position to debug hadn't hit on this state (and the fact that the timing has to be very fast means that it isn't easily reproduced in a debug environment). Most modules won't care. As Steffan points out, most non-ssl modules don't care either. mod_ssl freaks out, but we can't exactly put the blame on mod_ssl when it explicitly demanded a blocking response.
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
On 2/22/2012 9:21 AM, Jess Holle wrote: Does the event MPM work on Windows? Or is Apache on Windows still limited to the winnt MPM? If so, doesn't this leave Apache on Windows /far /behind other platforms when it comes to threads required for a given load? No / Yes / Compared to event - yes, worker - no. Event can't be supported verbatim; requires a server which supports 'fork', and we never abstracted AcceptFilter into apr (nor does the unix filter API allow pre-read data to be delivered in a single kernel accept call). However, it should be straightforward to apply event mpm logic to the Windows MPM, more using completion contexts rather than poll. Any true completion-oriented async winnt mpm should be expected to outperform a poll based model, though YMMV. I guess it doesn't matter *that* much until the event MPM and mod_ssl work out their differences such that one can reduce the threads required when HTTPS is used. For those who use a lot of HTTPS, the event MPM doesn't seem to buy one anything for now, right? Right. That could change, but mod_ssl needs to learn to be async, which it doesn't yet. And of course you don't save any SSL CTX's ... every keepalive will require the full connection pool even when it isn't thread bound.
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
However, it should be straightforward to apply event mpm logic to the Windows MPM, more using completion contexts rather than poll. Any true completion-oriented async winnt mpm should be expected to outperform a poll based model, though YMMV. IIRC there is a bugzilla patch for a complex looking change in this area for windows.
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
Ok, issues with all mod_ssl would be a big problem. If you needed to do DisableWin32AcceptEx, though, then something was already not quite right. What you mean by mod_ssl on a port, though? You just mean running an HTTPS listener right? On 2/18/2012 12:43 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/17/2012 10:38 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: On 2/17/2012 3:15 PM, Jess Holle wrote: Does this mean the Windows-specific issues have been resolved? Or that this is a non-Windows GA? No, the Windows specific issue (PR 52476) has not been solved. So it's GA for all but Windows. It's quite certainly GA for windows. Unless you wish to run mod_ssl on a port, and never successfully ran without the DisableWin32AcceptEx directive. For that small subset of users, there is more diagnostics required, and they won't enjoy success until 2.4.2 if then.
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
On 2/20/2012 8:04 AM, Jess Holle wrote: Ok, issues with all mod_ssl would be a big problem. If you needed to do DisableWin32AcceptEx, though, then something was already not quite right. What you mean by mod_ssl on a port, though? You just mean running an HTTPS listener right? Precisely. mod_ssl does not interact well (expects its bucket read to be blocking) against the incomplete response created by a 'data-less' AcceptEx or accept(). There are a ton of weird variations in which blocking states are inherited from a listening socket to an AcceptEx socket vs an accept socket on Windows. That's where the problem is, and those in a position to debug hadn't hit on this state (and the fact that the timing has to be very fast means that it isn't easily reproduced in a debug environment). Most modules won't care. As Steffan points out, most non-ssl modules don't care either. mod_ssl freaks out, but we can't exactly put the blame on mod_ssl when it explicitly demanded a blocking response.
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
Platform specific ... documentation. Should I be thinking about writing something for AIX here, as I get it finished. Or is the README file going to be sufficient? I am working on it, just don't expect it yesterday :) On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote: On 18 Feb 2012, at 6:22 PM, Michael Felt wrote: If this is generic to builds, I would appreciate the HOWTO (link) as well as I am investigating howto build httpd with ldap support on AIX. One path is with openldap, other is with with itdsclient (IBM Tivoli Directory Server) support. You would need to add the correct configure options to your apr-util build, and then the httpd build. Other question, while asking - what is lua support? How disappointed, or better, why will httpd admins/users be disappointed when lua is not support out of the box? Lua is a programming language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lua_%28programming_language%29 If lua is available as a package on AIX, then adding support for it should be straightforward, however it would probably be best to package mod_lua separately, so that someone installing httpd isn't forced to install lua if they don't need it. The RPM packaging places some modules into their own dedicated packages for this reason: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/platform/rpm.html#building Regards, Graham --
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 13:56, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote: I haven't done much building on Windows. Does anyone have a good link/suggestions to begin producing httpd builds with openssl/openldap included? I'll send you a quick how to. Cheers Mario
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
If this is generic to builds, I would appreciate the HOWTO (link) as well as I am investigating howto build httpd with ldap support on AIX. One path is with openldap, other is with with itdsclient (IBM Tivoli Directory Server) support. Other question, while asking - what is lua support? How disappointed, or better, why will httpd admins/users be disappointed when lua is not support out of the box? On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Mario Brandt jbl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 13:56, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote: I haven't done much building on Windows. Does anyone have a good link/suggestions to begin producing httpd builds with openssl/openldap included? I'll send you a quick how to. Cheers Mario
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
Hi, On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 17:22, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote: If this is generic to builds, I would appreciate the HOWTO (link) as well as this is very specific to Windows build. But if you want to see it. See the second post in this topic[1] I am investigating howto build httpd with ldap support on AIX. One path is with openldap, other is with with itdsclient (IBM Tivoli Directory Server) support. ldap is out of the box for auth via mod_authnz_ldap[2]. On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 13:56, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote: I haven't done much building on Windows. Does anyone have a good link/suggestions to begin producing httpd builds with openssl/openldap included? For https you just need to have openssl in the srclib folder. For ldaps I can tell you only my experience on windows systems. There with openssl ldaps works, too. Other question, while asking - what is lua support? How disappointed, or better, why will httpd admins/users be disappointed when lua is not support out of the box? Well on Windows it is easy to compile into apache. Haven't tried on other plattform yet cause I don't see a need for me to use it. Cheers Mario [1] http://www.apachelounge.com/viewtopic.php?t=4469 [2] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_authnz_ldap.html
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
On 18 Feb 2012, at 6:22 PM, Michael Felt wrote: If this is generic to builds, I would appreciate the HOWTO (link) as well as I am investigating howto build httpd with ldap support on AIX. One path is with openldap, other is with with itdsclient (IBM Tivoli Directory Server) support. You would need to add the correct configure options to your apr-util build, and then the httpd build. Other question, while asking - what is lua support? How disappointed, or better, why will httpd admins/users be disappointed when lua is not support out of the box? Lua is a programming language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lua_%28programming_language%29 If lua is available as a package on AIX, then adding support for it should be straightforward, however it would probably be best to package mod_lua separately, so that someone installing httpd isn't forced to install lua if they don't need it. The RPM packaging places some modules into their own dedicated packages for this reason: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/platform/rpm.html#building Regards, Graham --
[RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
With the voting ending, I see the following results: +1 (binding): jorton, sf, kbrand, rjung, minfrin, jim +1 (non-binding): Noel Butler, Steffen, mturk, Gregg Smith, Mario Bland, +0: -1: As such, I call the vote as PASSING and that httpd 2.4.1 will be released as GA. I will move the tarballs over to dist so the mirrors have the weekend to sync up. I expect to announce the release next week, complimented with a PR as well. Thanks to ALL developers, users, testers, etc... This is truly another milestone in the httpd history and my deep thanks and congratulations go to all who helped make it happen!! On Feb 13, 2012, at 8:56 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: The 2.4.1 (candidate) tarballs are available for download and test: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.1 GA. NOTE: The -deps tarballs are included here *only* to make life easier for the tester. They will not be, and are not, part of the official release. [ ] +1: Good to go [ ] +0: meh [ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why. Vote will last the normal 72 hrs.
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
Congrats folks, way to go! - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com To: dev@httpd.apache.org Cc: Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:42 AM Subject: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1 With the voting ending, I see the following results: +1 (binding): jorton, sf, kbrand, rjung, minfrin, jim +1 (non-binding): Noel Butler, Steffen, mturk, Gregg Smith, Mario Bland, +0: -1: As such, I call the vote as PASSING and that httpd 2.4.1 will be released as GA. I will move the tarballs over to dist so the mirrors have the weekend to sync up. I expect to announce the release next week, complimented with a PR as well. Thanks to ALL developers, users, testers, etc... This is truly another milestone in the httpd history and my deep thanks and congratulations go to all who helped make it happen!! On Feb 13, 2012, at 8:56 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: The 2.4.1 (candidate) tarballs are available for download and test: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.1 GA. NOTE: The -deps tarballs are included here *only* to make life easier for the tester. They will not be, and are not, part of the official release. [ ] +1: Good to go [ ] +0: meh [ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why. Vote will last the normal 72 hrs.
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: As such, I call the vote as PASSING and that httpd 2.4.1 will be released as GA. Congratulations, very excited to soon have 2.4 in production! Cheers Tom
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
Does this mean the Windows-specific issues have been resolved? Or that this is a non-Windows GA? On 2/17/2012 9:13 AM, Tom Evans wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Jim Jagielskij...@jagunet.com wrote: As such, I call the vote as PASSING and that httpd 2.4.1 will be released as GA. Congratulations, very excited to soon have 2.4 in production! Cheers Tom
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
On 2/17/2012 3:15 PM, Jess Holle wrote: Does this mean the Windows-specific issues have been resolved? Or that this is a non-Windows GA? No, the Windows specific issue (PR 52476) has not been solved. So it's GA for all but Windows. On 2/17/2012 9:13 AM, Tom Evans wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Jim Jagielskij...@jagunet.com wrote: As such, I call the vote as PASSING and that httpd 2.4.1 will be released as GA. Congratulations, very excited to soon have 2.4 in production! Cheers Tom
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.1
On 2/17/2012 10:38 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: On 2/17/2012 3:15 PM, Jess Holle wrote: Does this mean the Windows-specific issues have been resolved? Or that this is a non-Windows GA? No, the Windows specific issue (PR 52476) has not been solved. So it's GA for all but Windows. It's quite certainly GA for windows. Unless you wish to run mod_ssl on a port, and never successfully ran without the DisableWin32AcceptEx directive. For that small subset of users, there is more diagnostics required, and they won't enjoy success until 2.4.2 if then.
