Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:34:54 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Cc: Steve Lewis <nepolon@systray.com>, "James E. Pace" <jepace@pobox.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Scaling Apache? Message-ID: <20000831183454.E18862@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <20000831033930.D25064@hand.dotat.at>; from dot@dotat.at on Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 03:39:30AM %2B0000 References: <20000828114314.Y1209@fw.wintelcom.net> <Pine.BSF.4.05.10008281156450.22201-100000@greg.ad9.com> <20000828115822.A1209@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000831013646.C25064@hand.dotat.at> <20000830190849.B18862@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000831033930.D25064@hand.dotat.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> [000830 20:39] wrote: I wrote >> > >May I make two suggestions: > >1) just issue a warning and continue on if the filter isn't available > > I decided to just continue and not issue a warning because in the > usual case accept filters aren't required and they can cause trouble > (greater vulnerability to DOS attacks). If the user is sufficiently > interested in them they'll find out about it from the release notes > and performance tuning documentation. This is complete bullshit, people need to actually read the code before making blanket statements like this. > >2) allow a runtime/compiletime option to use the 'httpready' module > > as it offers substantial benifits over dataready. > > There's already a compile time option. runtime would be nicer. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000831183454.E18862>