|
* On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:41:29 +0900,
* Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 07:30:20PM +0100, Roberto Nibali wrote:
>> >Just migrated another customer environment from some older
>> >Ldirectord 1.77.2.6 to a more recent version 1.77.2.45.
> There have been a number of updates since 1.77.2.45.
> Could you please try 1.186, which is available at
> http://www.vergenet.net/linux/ldirectord/download/ldirectord.1.186
Thanks, I am going to use this version. I will let you know, then.
> I have also put an updated explanation
> of how to get the latest ldirectord (which is 1.186 today),
> at http://www.vergenet.net/linux/ldirectord/download.shtml
>> I cannot provide you with an answer because I'm don't know enough about
>> ldirectord. What I'm wondering is, why it was changed, when the old code
>> worked
>> (don't tell me because forking was too heavy)? Also why wasn't something
>> like
>> the libcurl used for this? I'm not a seasoned perl-monger, so this could be
>> an
>> extremely stupid question.
> The code was changed because the SSL library that is used seems to have
> a memory leak in it somewhere. I have never been able to find it. But by
> having a short-lived child process the effects of the leak are negated
Yes, and the newer LWP based code is able to follow HTTP redirects of
the checked real servers.
Regards,
Volker
--
Volker Dormeyer <volker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Join the Fellowship and protect your Freedom! (http://www.fsfe.org)
|
