pe, 2004-04-16 kello 23:04, Sami Tikka kirjoitti:
Of course, the easy way out is to just increase the number of
threads/processes, but then the question is how many threads/processes
are enough to handle all HTTP CONNECTs and still have plenty to spare to
handle plain HTTP traffic. I think the
It seems I have tracked down the problem plagueing my client. It seems
it has absolutely nothing to do with AcceptEx().
AcceptEx() is reporting errors because the previous proxy is aborting
idle connections that Apache has not replied to in 150 seconds. That is
causing the specified network name
-Original Message-
From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please double check then check again. This sounds a lot like a
dynamic ip address issue.
The machine is using static IP address but the DHCP service was also running.
I disabled it but the hang with WSAEHOSTDOWN error
At 05:10 AM 3/29/2004, Tikka, Sami wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please double check then check again. This sounds a lot like a
dynamic ip address issue.
The machine is using static IP address but the DHCP service was also running.
I disabled
Rather than talk about what the name of the directive is, I'd like to raise
the issue does workaround involved really work or not.
I have a customer who runs a lightly loaded W2K server with Apache 2.0.45 +
selected patches and every couple of hours it hangs for 10-15 minutes and
then magically
Tikka, Sami wrote:
Rather than talk about what the name of the directive is, I'd like to raise
the issue does workaround involved really work or not.
I have a customer who runs a lightly loaded W2K server with Apache 2.0.45 +
selected patches and every couple of hours it hangs for 10-15 minutes
Joshua Slive wrote:
Didn't we decide in the move to 2.0 that all directives would take an
argument?
Maybe I wasn't paying attention.
Win32DisableAcceptex seems to work just by being present in the
config with no argument.
True.
Shouldn't it instead be Win32DisableAcceptex on|off
To be more
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Joshua Slive wrote:
Didn't we decide in the move to 2.0 that all directives would take an
argument?
Maybe I wasn't paying attention.
As far as I know, there are no other directives in httpd-2.0 that act this
way. But I may be mistaken.
* Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joshua Slive wrote:
Didn't we decide in the move to 2.0 that all directives would take an
argument?
Maybe I wasn't paying attention.
Win32DisableAcceptex seems to work just by being present in the
config with no argument.
True.
At 08:42 AM 3/22/2004, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Shouldn't it instead be Win32DisableAcceptex on|off
To be more consistent with EnableSendFile on|off, et. al? Hadn't considered that but
it makes sense.
or easier to parse and consistant w/ mmap/sendfile;
EnableWin32AcceptEx on|off [default: on if
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 08:42 AM 3/22/2004, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Shouldn't it instead be Win32DisableAcceptex on|off
To be more consistent with EnableSendFile on|off, et. al? Hadn't considered that but it makes sense.
or easier to parse and consistant w/ mmap/sendfile;
11 matches
Mail list logo
