Page 2 of 2
Re: [atomic-testing] Apache httpd 2.2.16-3
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:04 pm
by scott
I think its talking about httpd.worker not httpd.itk.
Re: [atomic-testing] Apache httpd 2.2.16-3
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:18 pm
by Highland
Any ideas why it kills PHP then?
Re: [atomic-testing] Apache httpd 2.2.16-3
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:30 pm
by scott
Nope, thats your job
Re: [atomic-testing] Apache httpd 2.2.16-3
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:39 pm
by Highland
Took a bit to track it down. /etc/httpd/conf.d/php.conf by default looks for prefork and ONLY prefork. Change
<IfModule prefork.c>
to
<IfModule !worker.c>
and it will work with itk
Re: [atomic-testing] Apache httpd 2.2.16-3
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:07 pm
by premierhosting
How's this project coming along? Looks interesting, I'm waiting to hear that it's stable on Centos5.5.
Re: [atomic-testing] Apache httpd 2.2.16-3
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:08 am
by Highland
It's relatively stable for me on my test server thus far (with mpm-itk enabled). It's not bad but there's only one production server I'd use it on since the other is mostly one giant app.
Re: [atomic-testing] Apache httpd 2.2.16-3
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:22 am
by scott
mod_ruid2 has kind of derailed this for the moment. It seems like a less disruptive approach than a full httpd upgrade. Right now the pros are:
* httpd 2.2.17 looks more impressive than 2.2.3 because the number is higher. (Please give me a real pro here
)
and the cons:
* It will break the service out of the box due to the deprecated memcache and other modules.
Re: [atomic-testing] Apache httpd 2.2.16-3
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:48 pm
by Highland
Depends on if you rely on yum vs pecl for your module. v.17 handles my pecl compiled module just fine. In fact, I tend to advise people to avoid using yum pecl libraries and just install them yourself (pecl makes it just as easy as yum in most cases).
But yeah, I can't think of any real benefits I'm seeing of .17 over .3. Best to let sleeping dogs lie.