Thanks.
It was requirement to use apache, but since it is not possible, I will use
physical balancers.
From: luis.daniel.lu...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:44:57 -0400
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] High Availability Load Balancing with Apache
There are for sure, b
There are for sure, better tools to do what you want instead apache.
Look for Corosync+Pacemaker
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz
CISSP, CISM, CISA
Linux, VoIP and much more fun
www.okay.com.mx
Need LCR? Check out LCR for FusionPBX with FreeSWITCH
Need Billing? Check out Billing for FusionPBX with FreeS
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Macks, Aaron
wrote:
> one for every time we use any of those variables. We tried setting a
> default value with SetEnv, then overwriting it with setenvif, but that
> didn’t fix anything. What should we tweek in the configs to conform to the
> 2.4 way and tamp do
We’re migrating some configs from 2.2 to 2.4 and have run into an issue with
using SetEnvIf values in proxies. Our config looks roughly like this:
SetEnvIf Server_Addr 123.123.123.123 LEG=QA1 APPSERVER=appserver01
…
then we proxy using that APPSERVER value:
ProxyPassInterpolateEnv On
P
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Alan Peña Islas wrote:
> Additionally, making a simple search, there are so many solutions to make a
> high available load balancer (using other software like Artic Monkey,
> putting physical load balancers, etc), but I want use only apache modules.
> If this is n
Hi,
Is there any configuration to achieve a load balancing only with Apache?
I have two servers to offer cryptographic services, so, I want to put an Apache
balancer in front of them for high availability; since this is a single point
of failure, I need an Apache load balancer cluster to ensure
Kurtis,
Thanks very much.
Timothy Mann
- Original Message -
From: "Kurtis Rader"
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 5:36:56 PM
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] CGI Arguments
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 12:29 PM, < tim_m...@comcast.net > wrote:
I can call a cgi scr
Hi Zimmi,
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Zimmi wrote:
>
> Are only lookahead (?=foo) supported in mod_substitute, and not the other
> (negative lookahead, lookbehind and negative lookbehind) ?
> Other syntax or did I miss something ?
A lookbehind assertion needs its subject to be placed *after
Hi list!
I was testing mod_substitute and lookaheads. I tested with the simple
setup below (a simple string in an index.html, and a .htaccess file),
and the lookahead yields expected result, the negative lookahead and the
lookbehind have no effect.
The negative lookbehind has a behaviour that
