I got around to toying with 1.1.0 this evening on my development
cluster and ran into a couple of problems....
First of all, I didn't really want to recompile apache, so I used apxs
to generate mod_backhand.so and moved it into my libexec directory.
(this has worked fine for me in the past when replacing 1.0.9 with a
slightly tweaked 1.0.9)
% /full/path/to/apache/bin/apxs -c -o mod_backhand.so apue.c arriba.c \
back_util.c builtins.c mod_backhand.c
% cp mod_backhand.so /full/path/to/apache/libexec
( I also generated byHostname.so, but it was identical to my old one)
After stopping and starting apache, things looked OK at first because
the /backhand-status page page loaded fine, looked reasonable, listed
my other machines (running 1.0.9), and displayed the new 1.1.0
version.
However, I tried to pull a few other pages, and about 10% failed
with the following error messages.
[Fri Sep 8 03:59:35 2000] [notice] Func executed for (null)
[libexec/byHostname.so::byHostname(host)] (6 -> 1)
[Fri Sep 8 03:59:35 2000] [notice] All funcs executed -> host.domain.com
[Fri Sep 8 03:59:35 2000] [error] (9)Bad file descriptor:
mod_backhand: MBCSP error (making request)
[Fri Sep 8 03:59:35 2000] [error] [client 192.168.1.99] File does not
exist: /path/to/docroot/test.html
[Fri Sep 8 03:59:35 2000] [error] mod_backhand: could not get valid
connection -- forced local
(Note: The same page would alternate between failing and succeeding)
So, my questions are two fold:
1.) Is there anything obviously wrong with using apxs the way I
did? In theory should it have worked, or is there some obvious
reason I need to upgrade differently?
2.) What do 'MBCSP error (making request)' and 'could not get valid
connection' mean? Keep in mind, I'm using mod_backhand on port 80
to proxy connections to mod_perl on port 81. (this is why
I get the "File not Found" error, mod_proxy can't find the
file because its in mod_perl's docroot)
I've diffed the source code, and none of the new changes seem like
they'd cause this... This makes me think it was the way I installed
it...
I'm willing to dig a deeper into it, but thought I'd get a bit more
information before I dive in.
-Blake
cluster and ran into a couple of problems....
First of all, I didn't really want to recompile apache, so I used apxs
to generate mod_backhand.so and moved it into my libexec directory.
(this has worked fine for me in the past when replacing 1.0.9 with a
slightly tweaked 1.0.9)
% /full/path/to/apache/bin/apxs -c -o mod_backhand.so apue.c arriba.c \
back_util.c builtins.c mod_backhand.c
% cp mod_backhand.so /full/path/to/apache/libexec
( I also generated byHostname.so, but it was identical to my old one)
After stopping and starting apache, things looked OK at first because
the /backhand-status page page loaded fine, looked reasonable, listed
my other machines (running 1.0.9), and displayed the new 1.1.0
version.
However, I tried to pull a few other pages, and about 10% failed
with the following error messages.
[Fri Sep 8 03:59:35 2000] [notice] Func executed for (null)
[libexec/byHostname.so::byHostname(host)] (6 -> 1)
[Fri Sep 8 03:59:35 2000] [notice] All funcs executed -> host.domain.com
[Fri Sep 8 03:59:35 2000] [error] (9)Bad file descriptor:
mod_backhand: MBCSP error (making request)
[Fri Sep 8 03:59:35 2000] [error] [client 192.168.1.99] File does not
exist: /path/to/docroot/test.html
[Fri Sep 8 03:59:35 2000] [error] mod_backhand: could not get valid
connection -- forced local
(Note: The same page would alternate between failing and succeeding)
So, my questions are two fold:
1.) Is there anything obviously wrong with using apxs the way I
did? In theory should it have worked, or is there some obvious
reason I need to upgrade differently?
2.) What do 'MBCSP error (making request)' and 'could not get valid
connection' mean? Keep in mind, I'm using mod_backhand on port 80
to proxy connections to mod_perl on port 81. (this is why
I get the "File not Found" error, mod_proxy can't find the
file because its in mod_perl's docroot)
I've diffed the source code, and none of the new changes seem like
they'd cause this... This makes me think it was the way I installed
it...
I'm willing to dig a deeper into it, but thought I'd get a bit more
information before I dive in.
-Blake