You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by rb...@covalent.net on 2001/01/09 07:00:49 UTC
We're not on 2.0 :-(
I had moved us to 2.0 for about ten minutes, but we were seg faulting
pretty regularly, so I moved us back to 1.3. I will look into the seg
faults tomorrow. I would mention that the server was working well other
than the seg faults. We don't seem to stream data as well as 1.3 did, but
I think that's because in 1.3 we sent data when we had 4k, in 2.0 we wait
to send 9k at a time. This will have an effect on the perceived
performance.
We have another problem, but this one should be relatively easy to
solve. bugs.apache.org will not work with the code as it exists
today. The problem is easy, suexec is compiled against apr, but we use
libtool, so nothing is easy. :-)
These are the important error messages:
[Mon Jan 08 21:48:41 2001] [error] [client 63.248.250.243] Premature end
of script headers: /da1/www/bugs.apache.org/index.cgi
[Mon Jan 08 21:48:41 2001] [error] [client 63.248.250.243]
/usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libaprutil.so.0" not found
Basically, this is happening because libaprutil.so isn't installed, and
suexec hasn't got a clue where to find it. We just need to fix the
linking. Any libtool experts want to take this?
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: We're not on 2.0 :-(
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> > > > [Mon Jan 08 21:48:41 2001] [error] [client 63.248.250.243] Premature end
> > > > of script headers: /da1/www/bugs.apache.org/index.cgi
> > > > [Mon Jan 08 21:48:41 2001] [error] [client 63.248.250.243]
> > > > /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libaprutil.so.0" not found
> > > >
> > > > Basically, this is happening because libaprutil.so isn't installed, and
> > > > suexec hasn't got a clue where to find it. We just need to fix the
> > > > linking. Any libtool experts want to take this?
> > >
> > > Euh... why should suexec be expecting a .so library for aprutil? We added
> > > code to the configure script to disable shared compilation. So the question
> > > is: how did you end up with an suexec that was expecting one?
> >
> > I ran configure and make. Something is wrong with our setup.
>
> apr-util/configure?
No, I ran Apache's configure script. That was it.
> If so, then of course the shared lib was built: you lost all the options
> that Apache passed into apr-util. And more specifically: --disable-shared.
>
> (you'd also create an independent cache, lose the --with-maintainer-mode, etc)
I know all of that. I don't believe the current setup is working
correctly for suexec. I'll be looking into it tonight.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: We're not on 2.0 :-(
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 06:25:55AM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> > > These are the important error messages:
> > >
> > > [Mon Jan 08 21:48:41 2001] [error] [client 63.248.250.243] Premature end
> > > of script headers: /da1/www/bugs.apache.org/index.cgi
> > > [Mon Jan 08 21:48:41 2001] [error] [client 63.248.250.243]
> > > /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libaprutil.so.0" not found
> > >
> > > Basically, this is happening because libaprutil.so isn't installed, and
> > > suexec hasn't got a clue where to find it. We just need to fix the
> > > linking. Any libtool experts want to take this?
> >
> > Euh... why should suexec be expecting a .so library for aprutil? We added
> > code to the configure script to disable shared compilation. So the question
> > is: how did you end up with an suexec that was expecting one?
>
> I ran configure and make. Something is wrong with our setup.
apr-util/configure?
If so, then of course the shared lib was built: you lost all the options
that Apache passed into apr-util. And more specifically: --disable-shared.
(you'd also create an independent cache, lose the --with-maintainer-mode, etc)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: We're not on 2.0 :-(
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> > These are the important error messages:
> >
> > [Mon Jan 08 21:48:41 2001] [error] [client 63.248.250.243] Premature end
> > of script headers: /da1/www/bugs.apache.org/index.cgi
> > [Mon Jan 08 21:48:41 2001] [error] [client 63.248.250.243]
> > /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libaprutil.so.0" not found
> >
> > Basically, this is happening because libaprutil.so isn't installed, and
> > suexec hasn't got a clue where to find it. We just need to fix the
> > linking. Any libtool experts want to take this?
>
> Euh... why should suexec be expecting a .so library for aprutil? We added
> code to the configure script to disable shared compilation. So the question
> is: how did you end up with an suexec that was expecting one?
I ran configure and make. Something is wrong with our setup.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: We're not on 2.0 :-(
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:00:49PM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>...
> We have another problem, but this one should be relatively easy to
> solve. bugs.apache.org will not work with the code as it exists
> today. The problem is easy, suexec is compiled against apr, but we use
> libtool, so nothing is easy. :-)
>
> These are the important error messages:
>
> [Mon Jan 08 21:48:41 2001] [error] [client 63.248.250.243] Premature end
> of script headers: /da1/www/bugs.apache.org/index.cgi
> [Mon Jan 08 21:48:41 2001] [error] [client 63.248.250.243]
> /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libaprutil.so.0" not found
>
> Basically, this is happening because libaprutil.so isn't installed, and
> suexec hasn't got a clue where to find it. We just need to fix the
> linking. Any libtool experts want to take this?
Euh... why should suexec be expecting a .so library for aprutil? We added
code to the configure script to disable shared compilation. So the question
is: how did you end up with an suexec that was expecting one?
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/