Am 08.02.2018 um 19:33 schrieb Luca Toscano:
sorry for late reply, was in the clinch with special kind of the flu and
still not over.
i applied patch to current 2.4.29 sources and can confirm it works, but
there is a little constraint.
It only works, when using ob_flush() in script:
with mod_php or classical mod_fastcgi it works in script by just using
flush(). so in example script lines 3,7,17 are not necessary
2018-02-02 12:20 GMT+01:00 Hajo Locke <hajo.lo...@gmx.de
Am 02.02.2018 um 07:05 schrieb Luca Toscano:
2018-02-01 13:20 GMT+01:00 Hajo Locke <hajo.lo...@gmx.de
Am 01.02.2018 um 09:10 schrieb Hajo Locke:
Am 01.02.2018 um 04:46 schrieb Luca Toscano:
2018-01-31 1:27 GMT-08:00 Hajo Locke <hajo.lo...@gmx.de
currently i compare features and behaviour of
proxy_fcgi to classical methods like mod_fastcgi/mod_php.
mod_php/fastcgi have options to send every output from
backend immediately to client. So it is possible to see
progressing output in browser and not complete
websiteoutput at once.
Here is an example script:
if you ran this with php-cli or adjusted
mod_php/mod_fastcgi you see progress in browser and
numbers 0 1 2 appear one after another.
If you run this with proxy_fcgi you will see no
progress, but complete output at once.
mod_proxy knows about worker parameter flushpackets,
but the docs say this is in effect only for AJP. I can
confirm that this and related options have no effect.
There are some workarounds posted in the web, but only
one worked for me. If i add following line to the
script, i also see a progress with proxy_fcgi in browser:
Somebody knows a working workaround which works without
scriptediting? some workarounds tell about using
"SetEnv no-gzip 1". This was not working for me and iam
not please to disable content-compression.
Is it planned to support >>flushpackets<< also to
May be this is not important for typical website but
some service/monitoring scripts.
The functionality is committed to trunk but never
backported to 2.4.x because I was not sure about its
importance, it looks like some users might benefit from it :)
The trunk patch is http://svn.apache.org/r1802040
<http://svn.apache.org/r1802040>, it should apply to 2.4.x
if you want to test it and give me some feedback.
I tried this and it works great. I see same behaviour as
expected with other methods. I think some users might
benefit from this. I saw some discussion related to this
topic and people just ended up by ungainly workaround.
Unfortunately i spoke too soon. I was too euphoric when
reading your answer ;)
Behaviour is definitively more then expected, but it seems
there is still a minimum-limit for the buffer to flush. I
suppose this limit is 4096 bytes.
you can comprehend this with pastebinexample above.
Change line 2 from "$string_length = 14096;" to
"$string_length = 1331;"
When calling this php-file you will see no progress. All
output appears at once.
Change scriptline to "$string_length = 1332;", you will see
at least 2 steps of output, because first step seems to break
this 4096 bufferlimit. increasing $string_length more and
more results in more steps of output.
So current mod_proxy_fcgi.c from svn with configured
"flushpackets=On" seems to work exaktly like
setting iobuffersize to lower numbers has no effect.
What do you think? Is there still a hard-coded limit or do i
have a problem in my configuration?
I would be really glad, if you could take a look at this issue.
I am far from being an expert in PHP, but I added "ob_flush();"
right before "flush()" in your script and the 1331 use case seems
flushing correctly. Do you mind to check and let me know what do
you get on your testing environment? As far as I can see in the
mod_proxy_fcgi's code the iobuffersize variable is taken into
It seems that i was additional mocked by my browser. There is no
need to edit this script, just using the right browser ;)
I think your new mod_proxy_fcgi.c did it and my testing was
incorrect. I think we can go into weekend..
Full list of commits is: svn merge -c 1802040,1807876,1808014,1805490
mod_proxy_fcgi.c only patch:
If you want to give it another round of test it would be really
appreciated, in case everything is fine I'll propose it for backport
to 2.4.x :)
Is this proxy dependent?