qnx web server support?
Prasad Chintalapati
Is there anybody out there who knows if there is a qnx
webserver, we can get or how we could go about developing one.
Colin Burgess
Prasad Chintalapati wrote:
>
> Is there anybody out there who knows if there is a qnx
> webserver, we can get or how we could go about developing one.
nicely.
You can get it at http://www.apache.org
--
===========================================================================
Colin Burgess | email: co...@econz.co.nz Ph: +64 9 378 8611 |
QNX Systems Programmer | sco...@iconz.co.nz Fax: +64 9 378 9010 |
ECONZ (1971) Ltd | smail: PO Box 68-261 Newton Auckland New Zealand |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Copeman
On 23 May 1996, Prasad Chintalapati wrote:
> Is there anybody out there who knows if there is a qnx
> webserver, we can get or how we could go about developing one.
>
>
Yes, we have ported the NCSA httpd 1.3 to QNX and use it to run our Website.
We have also had some success in using it to serve Java docs and applets to
our Sun and Win 95 network hosts.
I think the source can also be found at ftp.fdma.com in /pub/qnx/ported (I
think?)
Richard.
Jim Carroll
Colin Burgess (co...@econz.co.nz) wrote:
: Prasad Chintalapati wrote:
: >
: > Is there anybody out there who knows if there is a qnx
: > webserver, we can get or how we could go about developing one.
: nicely.
: You can get it at http://www.apache.org
Since the topic came up 8-)
I have been using Apache 1.0.2 very successfully under Qnx4.22 for quite
awhile now.
We recently upgraded to beta Qnx4.23, and can no longer raise a SIGHUP
signal on Apache (to slay it). Apache now will only listen to SIGKILL.
It simply ignores the SIGHUP; no log written in error_log nor access_log,
no singal pending on the apache process.
I am at a loss on this one. The executable is identical to the Qnx4.22
version.
Has anyone else seen this problem?
---
Jim C., President | C a r r o l l - N e t, Inc.
201-488-1332 voice | New Jersey's Premier Internet Service Provider
201-487-5717 dialup |
http://www.carroll.com | Dialup ISDN NOW available!
Michael S. Scheidell
In article <Ds4zC...@news2.new-york.net>, Jim Carroll wrote:
>
>Since the topic came up 8-)
>
>
>I have been using Apache 1.0.2 very successfully under Qnx4.22 for quite
>awhile now.
>
>We recently upgraded to beta Qnx4.23, and can no longer raise a SIGHUP
>signal on Apache (to slay it). Apache now will only listen to SIGKILL.
>It simply ignores the SIGHUP; no log written in error_log nor access_log,
>no singal pending on the apache process.
>
>I am at a loss on this one. The executable is identical to the Qnx4.22
>version.
>
>Has anyone else seen this problem?
yep, and on qnx's inetd that came with the beta 4.23 tcpip.
sometimes a 'slay -s SIGHUP inetd' works.
sometimes it just kills inetd.
(it ALSO used to do it to syslogd, ie ignore the sighup.
but qnx did something to the syslogd to fix it....
--
Michael S. Scheidell Florida Datamation, Inc.
<mailto:sche...@fdma.com> <http://www.fdma.com/>
Distributors of QNX Real Time OS (407) 241-2966
Ethernet (n): something used to catch the etherbunny
Colin Burgess
Jim Carroll wrote:
> We recently upgraded to beta Qnx4.23, and can no longer raise a SIGHUP
> signal on Apache (to slay it). Apache now will only listen to SIGKILL.
> It simply ignores the SIGHUP; no log written in error_log nor access_log,
> no singal pending on the apache process.
>
> I am at a loss on this one. The executable is identical to the Qnx4.22
> version.
>
> Has anyone else seen this problem?
I thought it was a bug in that, and didn't link it to me upgrading
to 4.23 - beat's me what the problem is though.
One for Steve at QNX, I believe!
Jean-Claude MICHOT
Colin Burgess (co...@econz.co.nz) wrote:
: Jim Carroll wrote:
: > We recently upgraded to beta Qnx4.23, and can no longer raise a SIGHUP
: > signal on Apache (to slay it). Apache now will only listen to SIGKILL.
: > It simply ignores the SIGHUP; no log written in error_log nor access_log,
: > no singal pending on the apache process.
: >
: > I am at a loss on this one. The executable is identical to the Qnx4.22
: > version.
: >
: > Has anyone else seen this problem?
: Yes, I have seen that too, but I am now using the 1.1 beta 2 version,
: I thought it was a bug in that, and didn't link it to me upgrading
: to 4.23 - beat's me what the problem is though.
I run Qnx4.23 and Apache, i don't have your problem, I start
Apache with 32 process, and i have more than 50000 hits/day.
--
Jean-Claude MICHOT (France-Teaser) Email: jcmi...@teaser.fr
telnet: bbs.teaser.fr http://www.teaser.fr/~jcmichot
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.