> > So that was bad way to simulate "apachectl stop" just because of the above.
> > I think with 2.2 it even is not true, because apache2 has own way to
> > configure shutdown timeouts, the GracefulShutdownTimeout directive.
On 09.05.11 16:26, Bostjan Skufca wrote:
> Yes, timeout is configurable,
On 9 May 2011 15:44, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> So that was bad way to simulate "apachectl stop" just because of the above.
> I think with 2.2 it even is not true, because apache2 has own way to
> configure shutdown timeouts, the GracefulShutdownTimeout directive.
Yes, timeout is configurab
> >< if a server is killed (SIGKILL) during a "large" static file transfer, then
> >> the client is not notified by his browser that file has not been completely
> >> downloaded. On Win it just says it is not a valid Win32 application or
> >> corrupted or sth.
> >> Now I know this is not a general
>
> if a server is killed (SIGKILL) during a "large" static file transfer, then
>> the client is not notified by his browser that file has not been completely
>> downloaded. On Win it just says it is not a valid Win32 application or
>> corrupted or sth.
>> Now I know this is not a general problem a
On April 20, 2011 11:11 , Bostjan Skufca wrote:
if a server is killed (SIGKILL) during a "large" static file transfer,
then the client is not notified by his browser that file has not been
completely downloaded. On Win it just says it is not a valid Win32
application or corrupted or sth.
Now
Hi all,
if a server is killed (SIGKILL) during a "large" static file transfer, then
the client is not notified by his browser that file has not been completely
downloaded. On Win it just says it is not a valid Win32 application or
corrupted or sth.
Now I know this is not a general problem and a gr
