> Can you provide some more information to be able
> to reproduce your test over here?
Just make a web page like the one described. Enable mod_deflate and load the
page in your favorite browser that has debugging
(Firebug, IE9, Chrome, etc). In my case, it appears Apache selects the chunked
e
- Original Message -
> Dear users,
>
> I have try to find out how to set SSL logs from debug to info even
> when I have setup LogLevel to debug.
> My log /var/log/apache2/error.log contains as debug logs from the
> module as SSL logs and this is not
> readable well.
>
> Do you have any id
Thanks a lot Geoff. Can you provide some more information to be able
to reproduce your test over here? And how many chunks did the response
contain?
In addition to that, if someone with first-hand knowledge of Apache or
browser internals could shed a light I'd really appreciate it. Reverse
enginee
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Jason Vas Dias
wrote:
> But I had the impression from reading the documentation that the
> "access_log" was to
> record actual ACCESSes , ie. for requests that at least pass the "is a
> valid HTTP request" test ,
> and that non-requests, if logged at all, should
I'm new to Apache & to my environment too.
We run 4 Apache V2.0.52 & I've seeing high load averages (of 3 to 13)
reported by "top" on the Linux RHES 4.6 for the 1, 5 & 15 minutes avgs
on 3 of our webservers. All the servers' CPU are generally idle except
one webserver which sometimes hit 90-100%
On Tuesday 31 May 2011 15:37:17 Ben Timby wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jason Vas Dias
> wrote:
> > I guess this is just opportunist hosts trying to connect to port 80 / port
> > 443 with a garbage protocol ?
> > If so, why are log entries made in the access log and not in the error
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jason Vas Dias
wrote:
> I guess this is just opportunist hosts trying to connect to port 80 / port
> 443 with a garbage protocol ?
> If so, why are log entries made in the access log and not in the error log ?
Jason, this looks like a host connecting to port 443
On Tuesday 31 May 2011 15:16:00 Larry W Burton wrote:
> Jason,
> Congratulations. You are the likely target of a kiddie script attempting a
> buffer overflow or "dot dot" variant. Check your error logs and your access
> logs to ensure that the attempts were not successful. You can expect 10-20
> of
Jason,
Congratulations. You are the likely target of a kiddie script attempting a
buffer overflow or "dot dot" variant. Check your error logs and your access
logs to ensure that the attempts were not successful. You can expect 10-20
of these attacks per day.
Larry
Dr. Larry Burton
Associate Profes
Now finally able to host a website on my home static-IP ADSL connection, using
Linux (FC-14) apache httpd-2.2.17-1.fc14.x86_64 ,
with "IP-passthrough" and "Full NAT" enabled on the ADSL router so it assigns
my host its own WAN address ,
I'm seeing these strange entries in the access log :
117.24
> My test showed (according to Firebug) that the 15 MB
> page downloaded in 618ms.
Should clarify that on disk, the page was 14,254,523 bytes but after deflating,
I downloaded a mere 314 bytes of headers
(uncompressed) plus the 41,841 byte response body (compressed) for a total
payload of 42,
> Goal is to get the HEAD of HTML documents in the client side as soon
> as possible ...thus having a more responsive page...
Agreed!
> Can anyone confirm or deny this...
+1
I ran a quick test on a 10MB file that looks like this:
About 15 megabytes of dummy ascii text here...
And my FF4
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Geoff Millikan
wrote:
>> ...is it possible that mod_deflate works by chunks...
>
> Why are you doing this? It's not to increase client-side performance because
> correct me if I'm wrong here but it's been my
> understanding that the web browser cannot start dec
> ...is it possible that mod_deflate works by chunks...
Why are you doing this? It's not to increase client-side performance because
correct me if I'm wrong here but it's been my
understanding that the web browser cannot start decompressing the page until it
receives the final chunk. Based on
Frank,
thanks. I looked at the compatibility and that does not look too good as
we have loads of people using IE7 and XP, not sure ... it looks good, though.
Our company uses Firefox 3.68 so thats not the problem but I have
online questionnaires that rely on the https stuff, and lots of our
clie
15 matches
Mail list logo
