[Linux] Loading Linux modules in Apache?

[jaco at coocoo.za.net]

> В вс, 26/06/2005 в 20:37 +0200, jaco at coocoo.za.net пишет:
>> Hello Vladimir,
>>
>> > ÷ ×Ó, 26/06/2005 × 19:59 +0200, jaco at coocoo.za.net ÐÉÛÃ
Ô:
>> >> Hello All,
>> >>
>> >> I am trying to load a Linux module in Apache 2.0.53, but I am running
>> >> into
>> >> some problems.
>> >>
>> >> I am not sure if this is even possible, but I sure hope so. ;)
>> >
>> > I guess you have some choices:
>> >
>> > - (easyest) Install linux apache and run whole beast under linux
>> > emulation
>> > - (much harder) You can try to mix ABI in single binary (just like win
>> > or mplayer does with windows DLLs) but, it is not easy task
>> > - write module wrapper for apache, it will consist of two parts - one
>> > FreeBSD binary (loaded into bsd apache), another - linux  (it part
>> will
>> > load your linux apache module). Parts should be connected by some IPC
>> > and apache module interface should be exported via this IPC.
>> > [...]
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> Seems that I really do have a couple of choices. :)
>>
>> 1. This seems like the easyest route. I am just a bit worried about
>> performance here... I will do a couple of benchmarks though.
>
> I do not think that you will get significant performance degradation,
> but
> I think, you can resolve  some performance issues building linux apache
> under linux gcc using FreeBSD IPC syscalls.

Let me try this and get back to you...

>
> Theoretically bot linux and freebsd apaches should run with same speed
> at the end, but, of course there should be some practice issues.
>
>> 2. This will mean that I will have to change source code in either the
>> module or apache. I think this is going to be really hard. :P Is my
>> understanding of this correct? (I do not have source for the module)
>
> I understand that you have no sources, and In order to get all this work
> you can do a lot of linking/wrapping magic.
> But you should understand what you going to get.

I will take the easy way out this time. :)

>
>> 3. This also sounds like a good option. But, I think this is also going
>> to
>> be a bit complicated in the end.
>
> Probably yes, also, I guess it will affect performance much worse then
> option 1.

I agree.

>
>> I will do some tests on my side. At least I now know this is not
>> possible
>> the way I wanted to do it.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> ---Jaco
>
> --
> Vladimir B. Grebenschikov
> vova at fbsd.ru
>

---Jaco