httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: MPM-Event, renaming MaxClients, etc.
Date Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:05:12 GMT
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2011, at 2:48 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 6/20/2011 4:36 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>>> On Monday 20 June 2011, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>> On Jun 20, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>>>>> On Monday 20 June 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/20/2011 9:07 AM, Greg Ames wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Stefan Fritsch <sf@sfritsch.de
>>>>>>> <mailto:sf@sfritsch.de>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>   Speaking about config options, I think that MaxClients
>>>>>>>   should be renamed to MaxWorkers, because it limits the
>>>>>>>   number of worker threads, not the number of clients. As
>>>>>>>   with the MaxRequestsPerChild -> MaxConnectionsPerChild
>>>>>>>   rename, we would still accept the old name with a warning.
>>>>>>>   Thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1.  That's more accurate for sure, and more important when
you
>>>>>>> loose the 1:1 thread:connection ratio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we call this MaxRequestWorkers, now that we have different
>>>>>> sorts of workers living in the same process?
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point. Committed as r1137744
>>>>
>>>> That kind of last-minute change is going to kill people trying to
>>>> upgrade from 2.2 to 2.4 with a shared config.  We should make
>>>> MaxRequestWorkers an alias for MaxClients in a released 2.2.x
>>>
>>> I think you missed that MaxClients still works in 2.4 (albeit with a
>>> warning on startup). So I don't think it's such a big deal.
>>
>> Perhaps we should lower the severity from warning to info?  Not every
>> admin needs constant reminders while they are running 2.2 and 2.4 from
>> a single config.
>
> My point wasn't the warning, actually, but rather the fact that a config
> that uses MaxRequestWorkers (instead of MaxClients) will abort an instance
> of httpd 2.2.x.  Hence, a person upgrading to 2.4.x will get tripped up
> if they try to do so incrementally with shared config files across
> many web servers, unless they happen to notice that this change is
> merely cosmetic and they keep MaxClients instead.
>
> For a trivial improvement like this, we should make it easier on admins
> by backporting the alias to 2.2.x (even if we do not use it on 2.2.x).
>
> ....Roy

Many (most?) admins will be encountering other one-way changes (e.g.,
AcceptMutex,SSLMutex -> Mutex).  Using one config for both 2.2.x and
2.4.x is going to be an IfVersion exercise.

I think they'd be better served with an IfVersion cheatsheet at the
bottom of http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrading.html than with
addressing a subset of changes by adding compatibility code to 2.2.x.

Mime
View raw message