Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
I've done a backport patch of the mod_proxy_balancer PROXY_WORKER_DRAIN for the 2.2.x stream in the hopes it could be included in a future 2.2.x release. https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51247 \|/- Keith Mashinter kmash...@yahoo.com From: Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:36:51 AM Subject: Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA On 9/19/2011 8:42 PM, Keith Mashinter wrote: Just a reminder about this, providing a way to phase out a server by only accepting existing sessions/routed requests. |51247|New|Enh|2011-05-23|Enhance mod_proxy and _balancer with worker status Jim did add this feature as indicated in that bug report. The patch provides for a 'drain' setting which should do the trick. -- Daniel Ruggeri
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On 9/19/2011 8:42 PM, Keith Mashinter wrote: Just a reminder about this, providing a way to phase out a server by only accepting existing sessions/routed requests. |51247|New|Enh|2011-05-23|Enhance mod_proxy and _balancer with worker status Jim did add this feature as indicated in that bug report. The patch provides for a 'drain' setting which should do the trick. -- Daniel Ruggeri
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Thanks, I'll try it out. \|/- Keith Mashinter kmash...@yahoo.com -Original Message- From: Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:36:51 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA On 9/19/2011 8:42 PM, Keith Mashinter wrote: Just a reminder about this, providing a way to phase out a server by only accepting existing sessions/routed requests. |51247|New|Enh|2011-05-23|Enhance mod_proxy and _balancer with worker status Jim did add this feature as indicated in that bug report. The patch provides for a 'drain' setting which should do the trick. -- Daniel Ruggeri
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: - mod_lbmethod_bybusyness - mod_lbmethod_byrequests - mod_lbmethod_bytraffic Do we really need full doccos for these sub modules? No matter what, these would be easy to do since mod_proxy and mod_proxy_balancer pretty much describe them anyway ;)
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: - mod_heartbeat - mod_heartmonitor Those two were mainly provided by Jean-Frederic (AFAIR). I think these were Pauls… - mod_lbmethod_heartbeat As was this.
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: - mpm_simple mpm_simple likely to get dropped for 2.4, see our main STATUS file I hope to spent some time diving into mod_simple… I have some uncommitted patches that I need to re-look at.
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On Sep 19, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: - mod_lbmethod_bybusyness - mod_lbmethod_byrequests - mod_lbmethod_bytraffic Do we really need full doccos for these sub modules? No matter what, these would be easy to do since mod_proxy and mod_proxy_balancer pretty much describe them anyway ;) Someone's created enough of a doc to say what the module is after someone spots it in httpd -M and wants to know what it is. I'll update them to not promise more. That is, they currently say This document is still under development, but I think what's there is probably sufficient for the purpose. -- Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com rbo...@apache.org
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Just a reminder about this, providing a way to phase out a server by only accepting existing sessions/routed requests. |51247|New|Enh|2011-05-23|Enhance mod_proxy and _balancer with worker status I've reviewed the other patch https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841 and I had a similar idea, wondering if the route-only intent would happen if I tried to set lbfactor=0 but it only allowed values 1-100 and I worried about the complexity of changing the lbmethod formulae so using a separate status code seemed cleaner. It's a bit of a magic value, but an intuitive one I think. On the user surface lbfactor=0 requires less change than my ROUTE_ONLY to the configuration and balancer-manager but it needs some documentation to clarify the intent. I also attached a patch to https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51247 for the trunk, but since I'm having trouble with the overall compile it's in theory. Please forgive compile issues, but I wanted to at least share the thought and will update when I can verify a compile and test run. In the end, either solution can work, and my hope is that multiple attempts at the same goal make a stronger case to bring the functionality to the 2.2.x stream for people to enjoy sooner rather than later. \|/- Keith Mashinter kmash...@yahoo.com From: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:00:44 AM Subject: Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: - mpm_simple mpm_simple likely to get dropped for 2.4, see our main STATUS file I hope to spent some time diving into mod_simple… I have some uncommitted patches that I need to re-look at.
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
I think the windows accept filter issue is a real blocker. The only alternative would be to release 2.4.0 without official support for Windows. I took a look at this in the AM, and it looks like the acceptfilter none path is relying on data set only by AcceptEX (context-buffer) to fill in context-sa_server (child.c:590). In 2.2 the context-buffer is seeded by the 9x specific code. Seems like that block of code just needs a backport from win9x_get_connection to set the server side of this structure correctly before it's copied into sockinfo later in the same function. I can't easily build it and not sure what other non-acceptex 9x-isms are in win9x_get_connection. This matches the reports of the base VH being picked every time, but I couldn't find on the list where the culprit had been identified before.
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On Sep 17, 2011, at 10:02 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)… The only 2 showstoppers I see as reasonable are the documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. Could you enumerate what you feel is lacking in the documentation? I know of several modules that are effectively undocumented, and a few more that have minimal, but insufficient documentation. I'd like to hear your take on this. As always, I'm willing to whatever I can on the editing, formatting, etc, side of things, but the raw info needs to come from somewhere. Please let me know where I can be of assistance. Just the possible fact that some modules may not have doccos… Not sure if that is even the case (yet), but if there are mod's w/o docs, then we can't in good conscience ship the mods.
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On Sep 18, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Sep 17, 2011, at 10:02 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)… The only 2 showstoppers I see as reasonable are the documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. Could you enumerate what you feel is lacking in the documentation? I know of several modules that are effectively undocumented, and a few more that have minimal, but insufficient documentation. I'd like to hear your take on this. As always, I'm willing to whatever I can on the editing, formatting, etc, side of things, but the raw info needs to come from somewhere. Please let me know where I can be of assistance. Just the possible fact that some modules may not have doccos… Not sure if that is even the case (yet), but if there are mod's w/o docs, then we can't in good conscience ship the mods. My current list is: - mod_serf - mod_watchdog - mod_heartbeat - mod_heartmonitor - mod_lbmethod_bybusyness - mod_lbmethod_byrequests - mod_lbmethod_bytraffic - mod_lbmethod_heartbeat - mod_socache_dbm - mod_socache_memcache - mod_socache_shmcb - mpm_simple However, I will readily admit that I haven't had much time to work on docs the last month or two, so some of these many have been documented since then, and there may be others that I'm missing. There's also mod_lua, which has many directives documented with ..., and I suspect that there are other modules in this same state. -- Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com rbo...@apache.org
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On 19.09.2011 00:17, Rich Bowen wrote: My current list is: - mod_serf mod_serf likely to get dropped for 2.4, see our main STATUS file - mod_watchdog Mainly written by Mladen, so maybe he can provide a few pointers - mod_heartbeat - mod_heartmonitor Those two were mainly provided by Jean-Frederic (AFAIR). - mod_lbmethod_bybusyness - mod_lbmethod_byrequests - mod_lbmethod_bytraffic - mod_lbmethod_heartbeat Several people (including me) should be easily able to contribute to those docs. - mod_socache_dbm - mod_socache_memcache - mod_socache_shmcb Not sure about socache, but docs are definitely needed, because you need socache for mod_ssl session cache (which we also need to mention int the mod_ssl docs). - mpm_simple mpm_simple likely to get dropped for 2.4, see our main STATUS file However, I will readily admit that I haven't had much time to work on docs the last month or two, so some of these many have been documented since then, and there may be others that I'm missing. There's also mod_lua, which has many directives documented with ..., and I suspect that there are other modules in this same state. Regards, Rainer
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:52:34 +0200 Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote: - mod_socache_dbm - mod_socache_memcache - mod_socache_shmcb Not sure about socache, but docs are definitely needed, because you need socache for mod_ssl session cache (which we also need to mention int the mod_ssl docs). These modules are implementations of an abstraction, and probably don't want standard module pages. Like mod_proxy_foo backends. Maybe this can serve as a startingpoint for socache docs: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.3/socache.html (I had an idea I'd written some socache docs when I wrote mod_authn_socache, but I suspect it was no more than the above). -- Nick Kew
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On Sep 18, 2011, at 7:16 PM, Nick Kew wrote: - mod_socache_dbm - mod_socache_memcache - mod_socache_shmcb Not sure about socache, but docs are definitely needed, because you need socache for mod_ssl session cache (which we also need to mention int the mod_ssl docs). These modules are implementations of an abstraction, and probably don't want standard module pages. Like mod_proxy_foo backends. Excellent. I wondered if they were in that category. The list was produced from a simple grep. I'll remove those from my list, and see if I can find any that I missed, or which are new since I made the original list. -- Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com rbo...@apache.org
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On 19.09.2011 01:37, Rich Bowen wrote: On Sep 18, 2011, at 7:16 PM, Nick Kew wrote: - mod_socache_dbm - mod_socache_memcache - mod_socache_shmcb Not sure about socache, but docs are definitely needed, because you need socache for mod_ssl session cache (which we also need to mention int the mod_ssl docs). These modules are implementations of an abstraction, and probably don't want standard module pages. Like mod_proxy_foo backends. Excellent. I wondered if they were in that category. The list was produced from a simple grep. I'll remove those from my list, and see if I can find any that I missed, or which are new since I made the original list. I think we need to add to the mod_ssl docs, that if you want an ssl session cache (and yes, you want one although most modern clients support reusing the session without caching session data on the server side - it's a TLS extension OpenSSL/mod_ssl supports), you need to activate mod_socache_xxx where xxx depends on the SSLSessionCache you configure (maybe we need a table or similar). There is a short remark on the socache page, that it is used by other modules, but a user would expect a remark in the pages of the other mdules, that you need to activate the correct socache module. Regards, Rainer
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)… The only 2 showstoppers I see as reasonable are the documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. Could you enumerate what you feel is lacking in the documentation? I know of several modules that are effectively undocumented, and a few more that have minimal, but insufficient documentation. I'd like to hear your take on this. As always, I'm willing to whatever I can on the editing, formatting, etc, side of things, but the raw info needs to come from somewhere. Please let me know where I can be of assistance. -- Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com rbo...@apache.org
RE: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Steffen [mailto:i...@apachelounge.com] wrote on 发送时间: 2011年9月16日 3:46 ... Acept filter issue means in common that 2.4.0 cannot be used on Windows. Or would it better that 2.4.x only excludes Windows XP (32-bit) support, but Windows Vista and the later can be well supported? Also, official support of the Windows x64 versions of httpd-2.4.x is very important. Regards, Bing - Original Message - From: Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:09 PM Subject: Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA On Thursday 15 September 2011, Jeff Trawick wrote: I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)… The only 2 showstoppers I see as reasonable are the documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. I plan on adding doccos for the ones that are currently lacking, but the question is what to do about mod_fcgid… What's the best way to accomplish folding mod_fcgid into 2.4? Should we copy trunk of mod_fcgid and put it into trunk of 2.4? Use some svn mojo? etc…? I think the windows accept filter issue is a real blocker. The only alternative would be to release 2.4.0 without official support for Windows. The bundling of fcgid shouldn't be a blocker IMO. Much to my disappointment I haven't had time to work on it lately, and I see that no one else has either. +1, mod_fcgid can be added in 2.4.1+
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Accept filter issue is also with Vista+ 32/64 - Original Message - From: Bing Swen bs...@pku.edu.cn To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 10:37 AM Subject: RE: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA Steffen [mailto:i...@apachelounge.com] wrote on 发送时间: 2011年9月16日 3:46 ... Acept filter issue means in common that 2.4.0 cannot be used on Windows. Or would it better that 2.4.x only excludes Windows XP (32-bit) support, but Windows Vista and the later can be well supported? Also, official support of the Windows x64 versions of httpd-2.4.x is very important. Regards, Bing - Original Message - From: Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:09 PM Subject: Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA On Thursday 15 September 2011, Jeff Trawick wrote: I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)… The only 2 showstoppers I see as reasonable are the documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. I plan on adding doccos for the ones that are currently lacking, but the question is what to do about mod_fcgid… What's the best way to accomplish folding mod_fcgid into 2.4? Should we copy trunk of mod_fcgid and put it into trunk of 2.4? Use some svn mojo? etc…? I think the windows accept filter issue is a real blocker. The only alternative would be to release 2.4.0 without official support for Windows. The bundling of fcgid shouldn't be a blocker IMO. Much to my disappointment I haven't had time to work on it lately, and I see that no one else has either. +1, mod_fcgid can be added in 2.4.1+
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
I agree that it shouldn't be a blocker… I agree it would Be Nice if it was bundled… Let me look at fcgid and see what the current status is. On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)… The only 2 showstoppers I see as reasonable are the documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. I plan on adding doccos for the ones that are currently lacking, but the question is what to do about mod_fcgid… What's the best way to accomplish folding mod_fcgid into 2.4? Should we copy trunk of mod_fcgid and put it into trunk of 2.4? Use some svn mojo? etc…? The bundling of fcgid shouldn't be a blocker IMO. Much to my disappointment I haven't had time to work on it lately, and I see that no one else has either. There's little time remaining in 2.4 development and no apparent tuits to make effective use of the bundling by moving towards a more 2.4-centric/exploitive implementation, and at the same time bundling means one more test scenario for getting fixes out to users of fcgid with 2.2.x. For users, bundling saves one download and one tar/unzip. It builds within the httpd tree currently if desired.
Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)… The only 2 showstoppers I see as reasonable are the documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. I plan on adding doccos for the ones that are currently lacking, but the question is what to do about mod_fcgid… What's the best way to accomplish folding mod_fcgid into 2.4? Should we copy trunk of mod_fcgid and put it into trunk of 2.4? Use some svn mojo? etc…?
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
Hi, The only 2 showstoppers I see as reasonable are the documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. What is about the Windows AcceptFilter issues?[1] Greetz Mario [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1155061
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)… The only 2 showstoppers I see as reasonable are the documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. I plan on adding doccos for the ones that are currently lacking, but the question is what to do about mod_fcgid… What's the best way to accomplish folding mod_fcgid into 2.4? Should we copy trunk of mod_fcgid and put it into trunk of 2.4? Use some svn mojo? etc…? The bundling of fcgid shouldn't be a blocker IMO. Much to my disappointment I haven't had time to work on it lately, and I see that no one else has either. There's little time remaining in 2.4 development and no apparent tuits to make effective use of the bundling by moving towards a more 2.4-centric/exploitive implementation, and at the same time bundling means one more test scenario for getting fixes out to users of fcgid with 2.2.x. For users, bundling saves one download and one tar/unzip. It builds within the httpd tree currently if desired.
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On 9/15/2011 8:37 AM, Mario Brandt wrote: The only 2 showstoppers I see as reasonable are the documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. What is about the Windows AcceptFilter issues?[1] With the security issues resolved, I'll look at this after a short holiday for recuperation.
Re: Pushing for httpd 2.4.0 GA
On Thursday 15 September 2011, Jeff Trawick wrote: I plan on push for a GA in Oct (of this year)… The only 2 showstoppers I see as reasonable are the documentation ones and the mod_fcgid one. I plan on adding doccos for the ones that are currently lacking, but the question is what to do about mod_fcgid… What's the best way to accomplish folding mod_fcgid into 2.4? Should we copy trunk of mod_fcgid and put it into trunk of 2.4? Use some svn mojo? etc…? I think the windows accept filter issue is a real blocker. The only alternative would be to release 2.4.0 without official support for Windows. The bundling of fcgid shouldn't be a blocker IMO. Much to my disappointment I haven't had time to work on it lately, and I see that no one else has either. +1, mod_fcgid can be added in 2.4.1+
