[: -le: argument expected

Chris H. chris# at 1command.com
Thu Jan 31 12:59:20 PST 2008

Quoting Pete French <petefrench at ticketswitch.com>:

>> After several failed attempts to get a /stable/ installation of Apache13-ssl
>> and friends built and installed from source (see thread: /usr/bin/objformat,
>> for more background). I chose to look at the possibility of using 
>> Apache 2.0.
> Out of interest, why did you choose 2.0 and not 2.2 ? When I migrated
> away from 1.3 I originally tried 2.0 and had quite a bad time of
> it as I recall. So I left it a while and ended up going directly to
> 2.2, which has behaved beautifully. I can't solve your problem, but I can
> say that personal experience was 2.2 being easier to move to.

Hello, and thank you for your reply.

That's a fair (and expected) question. I have to tell you, my experiences
with 13-ssl have been /very/ good. That is until I upgraded to 7-PRERELEASE.
I spent quite some time (1 wk.) attempting to make it continue to work. In
the final analysis, I /did/ discover that even after resolving the original
problem exporting the symbols from the mod_*'s correctly, there is still an
apparent signalling/timing issue. I blame that on the fact that I'm using
ULE scheduling on 7, and am using BSD scheduling on all our 6.x servers.
Even baring that, after starting a working version of apache13-ssl on a
7-PRE i386 box and closely monitoring it reveals that it leaks memory like
sieve. So, rather than spending even more time (which I don't have)
attempting to plug the hole(s), and accounting for/correcting the timing
issue. I opted to take Jeremy Chadwick's gentle nudge to move to a newer
version of Apache - I went kicking and screaming the whole way. :) But I
spent an entire day reading the Apache 2.0, and 2.2 documentation (I'm
also already subscribed to the Apache dev list). My conclusion was that
the ultimate migration to 2, would be a lot smoother, and easier if moving
to 2.0 - the layout of both the server, and conf files are /very/ similar
(to 1.3). Further; the point changes occur at a much lower rate than that
of 2.2 - overhead that my current workload cannot tolerate. In 2.0's
defence; I found absolutely no issues what-so-ever with the building,
installing, or running of it. It also required /far/ less resources than
that of 1.3. Yet offered more threads/servers. So, it is difficult for
me to find an argument to move from 2.0. The current trouble I'm
encountering is clearly a PHP5 issue. As it isn't even touching the
Apache 2 install during the build process. I hope I've adequately
answered your question, and hope I wasn't /too/ verbose. :)

Thanks again.

--Chris H.

> -pete.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

panic: kernel trap (ignored)

More information about the freebsd-apache mailing list