Apache 2.0 on Apache.org

[rb...@covalent.net]

This is a heads up for everybody.  Greg Ames and I have put Apache 2.0 on
apache.org about 7:05 PST.  That means that we have been running Apache
2.0 for about a half-hour so far.  This is much longer than Apache.org has
been able to run Apache 2.0 for a very long time.

I will continue to monitor the server for the next few hours, but if
everything remains the way that it is right now, then we will leave the
server up for good (or until we have a good reason to remove it).

I want to thank Greg Ames.  He has worked very hard to get Apache 2.0
stable on Apache.org, and we would not be at this point without his hard
work.

Ryan

_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Apache 2.0 on Apache.org

[rb...@covalent.net]

> Thanks, Ryan, but I had *lots* of help.  
> 
> 1.3 came up at 00:00:01 PST and grabbed port 80.  I didn't do it (3 AM
> here).  Brian didn't do it, but about an hour and a half later he
> noticed a residual 2.0 parent running, not listening to a TCP port, so
> he killed it.  I don't think you did it either, Ryan.  Smells like a
> cron job to me, because of the time.  
> 
> I don't understand how port 80 got taken without killing 2.0.  If 2.0
> was killed, it didn't come down cleanly.  Maybe there's clues in the
> logs.
> 
> Other than that, I don't see any reason why 2.0 couldn't have stayed in
> production.

I have a couple of thoughts.  First of all, let's get 2.0 back up on
apache.org.  We can find the cron job that killed us later.  I believe
this was the rotatelogs script.

I believe we were able to re-grab the port because Apache 2.0 grabbed the
IPv6 port 80, and 1.3 grabbed the IPv4 80.  If they were both started at
the some time, is it possible for there to be a race condition between
grabbing the IPv6 port and IPv4 port?

Just a question.  Would anybody mind if I stopped 1.3 and brought up 2.0
in the next hour?  I'll watch it all day to see what is happening.

Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Apache 2.0 on Apache.org

[Greg Ames <gr...@raleigh.ibm.com>]

rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> 
> This is a heads up for everybody.  Greg Ames and I have put Apache 2.0 on
> apache.org about 7:05 PST.  That means that we have been running Apache
> 2.0 for about a half-hour so far.  This is much longer than Apache.org has
> been able to run Apache 2.0 for a very long time.
> 
> I will continue to monitor the server for the next few hours, but if
> everything remains the way that it is right now, then we will leave the
> server up for good (or until we have a good reason to remove it).
> 
> I want to thank Greg Ames.  He has worked very hard to get Apache 2.0
> stable on Apache.org, and we would not be at this point without his hard
> work.
> 

Thanks, Ryan, but I had *lots* of help.  

1.3 came up at 00:00:01 PST and grabbed port 80.  I didn't do it (3 AM
here).  Brian didn't do it, but about an hour and a half later he
noticed a residual 2.0 parent running, not listening to a TCP port, so
he killed it.  I don't think you did it either, Ryan.  Smells like a
cron job to me, because of the time.  

I don't understand how port 80 got taken without killing 2.0.  If 2.0
was killed, it didn't come down cleanly.  Maybe there's clues in the
logs.

Other than that, I don't see any reason why 2.0 couldn't have stayed in
production.

Greg