Return-Path: owner-new-httpd
Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id LAA10248;
 Wed, 26 Jul 1995 11:26:06 -0700
Received: from life.ai.mit.edu by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP
 id LAA10198; Wed, 26 Jul 1995 11:25:49 -0700
Received: from volterra (volterra.ai.mit.edu) by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10)
 for new-httpd@hyperreal.com id AA26007; Wed, 26 Jul 95 14:25:41 EDT
From: rst@ai.mit.edu (Robert S. Thau)
Received: by volterra (4.1/AI-4.10) id AA20539; Wed, 26 Jul 95 14:25:38 EDT
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 14:25:38 EDT
Message-Id: <9507261825.AA20539@volterra>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Cc: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
In-Reply-To: <199507261738.AA269220338@ooo.lanl.gov> (message from Rob Hartill
 on Wed, 26 Jul 95 11:38:58 MDT)
Subject: Re: Redirect in .htaccess files?
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

   From: Rob Hartill <hartill@ooo.lanl.gov>
   Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 11:38:58 MDT

   I've polled a few of the people on this list to find out what
   they have for

   StartServers and MaxServers

   It's not just too complicated for users, it's too complicted for us. 
   Everyone seems to have misconfigured these.

   I've also looked at the NCSA blurb on the two, and they don't have the
   same meaning as ours.

   I vote  -1 on releasing 0.8.x with these two names, unless there's
   a damn good reason to keep them.

   As alternatives I'd suggest

   StartServers ->  ServersToKeepReady
   MaxServers   ->  ServerPoolSize

This means having to do *something* about StartServers and MaxServers
directives in peoples' NCSA 1.4 config files, or fail to be a drop-in
replacement.  -1 on that.

If you want to have a StartServers parameter which means *exactly*
that, a new MinFree parameter which has the effect of the current
StartServers (also defaulting to 5 --- there is a measurable
performance difference between that and, say, 3), and a more mnemonic
alternative name for MaxServers, I could live with that, if only
because it doesn't involve major changes to the code.  However, at
this point, I vote -1 on *any* major change to the code itself.

To be blunt, I'm getting very frustrated with the whole tone of this
discussion.  I thought we had an agreement to stop monkeying around,
and get something out the door.  Very well then --- this is *not* the
time to be doing design work!  

I thought that agreement to release something was firm enough that I
told someone in public, a week ago, that we would have something out
the door just about now.  At this point, I think I've broken that
promise, and I don't feel very good at all about that.

So, are we trying to get something out the door, or would we rather
just dicker *indefinitely*?

rst