Re: [users@httpd] Using the most secure SSL cipher suites

I susgest to read this, may be you find it usesfull: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Server_Side_TLS B.R. 2015-10-18 22:42 GMT+02:00 David Mehler : > Hello, > > I'm configuring a new apache 2.4 system which will have a webmail app > running on it. I'm wanting to use

Re: [users@httpd] make apache 2.4.17 portable under ubuntu [wd-vc]

1. all systems must have the same Ubuntu release. 2. on all systems, the stick needs to be mounted on the same directory 3. build apache with a apache root directory that is located on the mounted stick. Make sure that nothing escapes you (conf location etc) That should do the trick. I have done

Re: [users@httpd] web server load testing

Anne Can you input a mixture of navigations within the tests, or does it just go to a single URL like "ab"? Thanks From: Anne Blankert > Reply-To: "users@httpd.apache.org"

Re: [users@httpd] web server load testing

Rainer To stress test new systems. Find breaking point. Thanks On 10/17/15 6:06 AM, "Rainer Jung" wrote: >Am 16.10.2015 um 23:06 schrieb Rose, John B: >> Does anyone have personal experience, or have heard anything, about any >> of these load testing apps? >> >>

Re: [users@httpd] Using the most secure SSL cipher suites

or you can follow the recommendations at https://cipherli.st. I would not recommend depending on an alias such as HIGH, which includes generally considered unsafe ciphers such as PSK or NULL and it will really depend on the openssl version you use so could result in a list with differences from

[users@httpd] Chunked transfer delay with httpd 2.4 on Windows.

Hi all, I'm seeing a weird problem that I'm running out of ideas on. I'm going to send this email to both the apache httpd users list and the tomcat users list (separate messages) but hoping for any ideas at all. The issue is currently reproduced using Apache httpd 2.4.16, mod_jk 1.2.41 and

Re: [users@httpd] Chunked transfer delay with httpd 2.4 on Windows.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Andy Wang wrote: > > Spdficially, note the 5 second delay between the first segment (No. 1854) > and the second data segment (1856). Does it correspond to the KeepAliveTimeout configured on the httpd side? (Note that if you did not configure it,

Re: [users@httpd] Chunked transfer delay with httpd 2.4 on Windows.

On 10/19/2015 06:14 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: I forwarded the discussion on the dev@ mailing-list, since httpd is delaying the write on the socket to fill in the pipe. I think this should be limited to pipelined request, but would like to ear others on this. I will report here if you're not on

Re: [users@httpd] Chunked transfer delay with httpd 2.4 on Windows.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Andy Wang wrote: > > On 10/19/2015 05:08 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Andy Wang wrote: >>> >>> >>> Spdficially, note the 5 second delay between the first segment (No. 1854) >>> and the second data

Re: [users@httpd] Chunked transfer delay with httpd 2.4 on Windows.

On 10/19/2015 05:08 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Andy Wang wrote: Spdficially, note the 5 second delay between the first segment (No. 1854) and the second data segment (1856). Does it correspond to the KeepAliveTimeout configured on the httpd