Something's not right here...
The original message stated that "my windows RAM has been increased".
Yet the response says that prefork workers are used.
The Windows platform only supports one MPM -- one specifically for Windows.
On 3/21/2014 12:47 AM, Voshka Niknam wrote:
Hello,
make it use M
near-term future, however, that may force a re-think of
Apache's role here.
--
Jess Holle
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
also let
it serve static content, but if it cannot handle and load balance
emerging protocols, then we may no longer have a place for it -- as we
certainly can do authentication in Tomcat.
--
Jess Holle
-
The official Us
s far easier for /me /to deal with than Perl, PHP, etc, anyway).
--
Jess Holle
On 10/21/2010 11:43 AM, Beer Dr. Thomas wrote:
Dear all,
to speed up our applet based application we are using the "pack200"
compression for the corresponding jar-files (e.g., First.jar, see
example below)
Is it possible to use the shared secret functionality of AJP with
mod_proxy_ajp?
If so, how? I don't see a way to do this via the documentation.
--
Jess Holle
-
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache
e of these dead workers wakes up!
This does not really explain how the 2 live workers become unbalanced,
but I do note that when the live worker that is inappropriately skipped
for a long interval is finally revisited its lbstatus is -382!
--
Jess Holle
Jess Holle wrote:
P.S. I'm u
P.S. I'm using the by-requests balancing algorithm. Perhaps I shouldn't be?
Jess Holle wrote:
Has anyone seen mod_proxy_balancer (in 2.2.11 with mod_proxy_ajp)
becoming unbalanced in usage?
In testing we've seen it balance fine for a minutes/hours and then
seemingly forget a
ad of me, but I just thought I'd check
to see if such an issue has already surfaced.
--
Jess Holle
P.S. Yes, I could try mod_jk instead, but mod_jk lacks one critical
capability -- the ability to throttle requests by queuing them up in
Apache rather than simply returning a 503 when the AJP
A patch already exists for this. See
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=727052&view=rev
Javier Miqueleiz wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:20:01PM +, Ian Lea wrote:
Hi
On apache 2.2.10 a config file with these lines
BalancerMember ajp://localhost:17100 route=yyy ping=10
works
subsequent requests from the given session
will go to the same endpoint. If you're not dealing with sticky
sessions, then load balancing is a short-term action except in cases
where you're dealing with enormous requests or responses.
--
Jess Holle
-
than using Terracotta or some such). In this scenario, it is possible
to end up with a lot more sessions stuck on one node than others and any
way of combatting this without a nasty performance impact is of interest.
--
Jess Holle
--
ng Apache on Windows or valued your sanity :-)]
--
Jess Holle
elfare for security/IT consulting
companies in this regard), then you might try mod_auth_sspi if you're
running Apache on Windows.
--
Jess Holle
Krist van Besien wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Harry Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well... that was my assumption. But looking a
No links off hand, but I can throw you one bit of advise:
Be sure to use UR1 (or higher) of Glassfish v2. It's AJP support had
issues prior to that point.
Constantin Moisei wrote:
Hi,
We are planning to front the GlassFish with Apache 2+ anyone can pass
me some links ?
Thanks in advance!
ything for other browsers.
--
Jess Holle
Fabio Marcone wrote:
Thanks for your reply but this is a IE bug. MS bug report:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;272359
Fabio
Mandy Singh wrote:
I am not 100% Positive but IE chokes on XML responses if there is not
Content-Le
clients as 0.0.0.0 - disable win32 acceptex to
work around that one). 2.2.5 will be substantially improved over 2.2.4,
as well.
That's nice to hear.
When will 2.2.5 see the light of day, though?
--
Jess Holle
lable binaries or good documentation on
producing them for all major platforms including Windows) sooner than later.
--
Jess Holle
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
SAVERIO FERRARO wrote:
hi William,
You're right!!
My version is 2.2.3.
I've just installed the IPv6 Stack on windows XP.
Could
Jess Holle wrote:
In some of my testing, Win32DisableAcceptEx seems to make a huge
improvement, however...
Okay, I take that back...
Jess Holle
wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
I'm seeing what appears to be really severe performance degradation
during the course of r
In some of my testing, Win32DisableAcceptEx seems to make a huge
improvement, however...
Jess Holle wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
I'm seeing what appears to be really severe performance degradation
during the course of really large downloads (e.g. 800MBs) on Windows
Apache'
Jess Holle wrote:
I'm seeing what appears to be really severe performance degradation
during the course of really large downloads (e.g. 800MBs) on Windows
Apache's -- both 2.0.x (recent builds) and 2.2.3.
Has anyone else seen this? Is this just a lack of tuning? If so,
poin
tested this case with 2.0.x). The latter case is actually our
real issue, but unless/until static file downloads don't show this
degradation there seems to be little point in chasing the (more
complex) dynamic case.
--
Jess Holle
21 matches
Mail list logo
