Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E95F200CBD for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 19:29:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 7D074166FAC; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 17:29:01 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id C383C166FAB for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 19:29:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 58170 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jul 2017 17:28:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 58148 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jul 2017 17:28:58 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 17:28:58 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 1BD5D1A0224 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 17:28:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, KAM_NUMSUBJECT=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7aD2WpUn0EUf for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 17:28:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf0-f178.google.com (mail-pf0-f178.google.com [209.85.192.178]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 07CF35FC97 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 17:28:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f178.google.com with SMTP id e7so4210536pfk.0 for ; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 10:28:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IJUcfMl3KEL3zq8RP+Nj9jZmEdXSU3iTlC89fD+6B98=; b=P9m07QugCy+c4OUESVUGxMrfT+JJ7FVNemrnrWzI4jA+8bOD4d7kyNxYuzKmDHOY8N 0ZQldWWT+ate69PVn5xBJWExrwgCuSf8Bglib5OcR/GA5vqm2/I9sCUiyKXuU2y5Lexn VUe3Z2qQ/D1wZNq7XRQBRhdue+qkt4fmgljfm3eEIK6jOBRVhxYzM14+hwZUEkSWdhAL 246zYeMfebZl5b8CccHqR/Xacjata9lVaWfsFmxzUl3AVtv275FhuF7xac5pYBxkB4uq tWUPPB+iyf+laPgTkrmTW/WX33ydU/OYF8SetKxhPZUvSwNd4CNZb7mRk3RQx6N0QMry kwmQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IJUcfMl3KEL3zq8RP+Nj9jZmEdXSU3iTlC89fD+6B98=; b=KuQRBLVSk/Nnl+MHgIG3UiUIcwTOaNHQkFNjWQ8qdFYnMDg6L8SJY7NLk4uiW+r9oo zGmLlPtyL1gf2b1bUJXI2xUT5Lq6A7LwrlQxd4q2zuPsxzkRILn9fiPDzYV1JKrlvtTT CBPj7z3jvqFhfBYHg7QVVnwTgD6wH8QDHenOFNvxStbmlZ0EiC1FFeeUsLh5fb0MqvWT aYCmTMM1MTfkqKsBbklbvDRzpZ92NbNevYIdpnZZjy2w5J22IuRPXFBdEKMGhJcAlJpH nyM3la06IsVJqGUTh+NyFXboWL87JE3lobum4BbK3ym6F4KAkt/z/hvWxAYRoyf3lEkw rxUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110MBF/ia8XVFMnGn3/ed/+iEZNX/Ni40aIkTa9h9sDJH2lPGfcu IwKzDrZQy92ElIs404s= X-Received: by 10.99.109.201 with SMTP id i192mr26702955pgc.204.1499362135667; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 10:28:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (50-39-112-180.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net. [50.39.112.180]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t67sm1365638pfj.98.2017.07.06.10.28.54 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Jul 2017 10:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: 2.4.27 To: dev@httpd.apache.org References: <19CA5E06-B22D-4A0C-B44F-1017CF1CF6E9@jaguNET.com> <20170703173945.cfeauklb6nslkte7@leander> <0e2901d2f667$f7772250$e66566f0$@qqmail.nl> <98F14D4D-55E7-43FA-B4F9-EA05E08CA0FA@greenbytes.de> From: Jacob Champion Message-ID: <0265ea06-55fc-9be4-3968-79c76acee824@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 10:28:53 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit archived-at: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 17:29:01 -0000 On 07/06/2017 10:09 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > with removing mpm_prefork support for H2 you kill HTTP2 support for a > lot of production setups which may consider switch to H2 in the future > and for sure not rework there whole configuration but put a proxy like > Trafficserver in front and forget about httpd at this point at all I think the fallout is more nuanced than that. The mod_http2 architecture currently cannot be mixed with prefork; it can lead to deadlock, and that's not okay for production systems in any way. Administrators using prefork who would like to switch to HTTP/2 in the future need to understand the limitations of the prefork architecture they have selected. And sure, our users can request that we implement a solution that "just works" with prefork, with the parent dispatcher that Stefan has mentioned, and we can weigh the cost/benefit of implementing it. But IMO it's not that onerous to ask our users to upgrade to a modern MPM if they want a nice new protocol. There are costs to making new things work with old machinery, and they affect you (the users) in real ways, even if you do not see them yourself. --Jacob