Recent changes to feature-requests

Lasso Connector

Anonymous — Sat, 28 May 2005 17:39:02 -0000

Despite being the last loaded module mod_gzip still
can't steal the output back from the
LassoConnectorforApache.so module. Lasso is now
developed by OmniPilot, www.omnipilot.com

error_log entries for 0 length files

Craig MacKenna — Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:40:06 -0000

Installed mod_gzip on our FreeBSD-based web server. Works OK,
but the error_log file is getting more complaints about zero-length
files than I like to see.

I put 'mod_gzip_minimum_file_size 1000' in our httpd.conf file. Zero
is less than 1000 so why should the module care?

The mod-gzip provided by our hosting company is 1.3.19.2a. Would
1.3.26.1a eliminate these error messages?

If not, guess I could download the source and eliminate the error
message. Is compiling source to a DSO well-documented? Very
difficult?

Patch so mod_status counts gzip'ed traffic

Anonymous — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:00:54 -0000

Here is a patch, so the output of mod_status includes
the gzip'ed traffic:

*** ORIG/mod_gzip-1.3.26.1a/mod_gzip.c Tue Oct
1 09:29:49 2002
--- mod_gzip-1.3.26.1a/mod_gzip.c Wed Feb
4 15:16:07 2004
***************
*** 7146,7151 ****
--- 7146,7154 ----
{
r->connection->client->bytes_sent =
total_body_bytes_sent;
}
+ /* BEGIN Till Brychcy 2004/02/04: this has to be set or
mod_status will get the
traffic
wrong*/
+ r->sent_bodyct = 1;
+ /* END Till Brychcy 2004/02/04: this has to be set or
mod_status will get the
traffic
wrong*/

#ifdef MOD_GZIP_DEBUG1
mod_gzip_printf( "%s: After count update...",cn);

Provide RPM and/or .DEB packages of mod_gzip

Sam Snow — Sun, 06 Apr 2003 22:42:28 -0000

I found one older RH 7.2 mod_gzip rpm:
http://vlugnet.org/apt/redhat/7.2/en/i386/SRPMS.vlugrpm
s/mod_gzip-1.3.19.1a-2.src.rpm

And a Mandrake RPM that is more recent:
http://speakeasy.rpmfind.net//linux/RPM/mandrake/9.1/S
RPMS/mod_gzip-1.3.26.1a-3mdk.src.html

From these two someone should be able to create a
good RPM that could be distributed from the SF site.

Sam

platform support

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:11:12 -0000

Does mod_gzip work on apache running on Solaris 8
platform?

mod_gzip 2.0.40 download

Guenter Knauf — Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:38:27 -0000

Hi all,
source of mod_gzip which should compile with Apache 2.0.4x is available here:
http://www.gknw.de/development/apache/httpd-2.0/unix/modules/
a Win32 binary here:
http://www.gknw.de/development/apache/httpd-2.0/win32/modules/

there are known problems with this module together with mod_php and mod_perl; but I have no time to look more for these issues; so patches are welcome!!
Guenter.

Apache2 Build Needed

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:39:01 -0000

Apache 2.043 compatible versions are badly needed of
the latest mod_gzip version.

source address based decision

Dwivedi Ajay kumar — Sun, 15 Dec 2002 08:50:59 -0000

Hi,
We should be able to define a list of source networks
to which the compressed content will be served. A
typical example is that of a server serving both an
intranet and internet. We would like to serve
compressed content to the requests originating on the
internet, and uncompressed content to the intranet thus
saving cpu load for intranet requests.

something like
mod_gzip_deny 10.0.0.0/255.0.0.0

Cheers,
Ajay

make gzip compression level configurable

Michael Schröpl — Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:33:39 -0000

(originally posted on the mod_gzip mailing list,
http://lists.over.net/pipermail/mod_gzip/2001-August/005492.html\)

[Mod_gzip] mod_gzip: "Level" of gzip algorithm /
trade-off between cpu load and bandwidth savings

This is about the effect of the numerical level of the gzip algorithm, which can be something from 0 (no
compression) to 9 (slow). mod_gzip uses level 6, as I read in the mailing list archive.

My simple question would be: "Why?"

I took a random, but typical HTML document x (some online manual
piece of our product with lots of redundant CSS ...) of 10097
bytes, and typed in via commandline:
gzip -1 x -> compressed to 1698 bytes (83.18%)
gzip -d x; gzip -2 x -> compressed to 1693 bytes (83,23%)
gzip -d x; gzip -3 x -> compressed to 1684 bytes (83,32%)
gzip -d x; gzip -4 x -> compressed to 1684 bytes (83,32%)
gzip -d x; gzip -5 x -> compressed to 1685 bytes (83,31%)
gzip -d x; gzip -6 x -> compressed to 1685 bytes (83,31%)
gzip -d x; gzip -7 x -> compressed to 1676 bytes (83,40%)
gzip -d x; gzip -8 x -> compressed to 1676 bytes (83,40%)
gzip -d x; gzip -9 x -> compressed to 1676 bytes (83,40%)

Just to be sure that I do understand what I'm doing, a look into
my mod_gzip log:
153.46.90.209 - - [23/Aug/2001:17:26:34 +0200] "finxs-dhtml GET
/hilfe/translationuserstylemanagement.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685
mod_gzip: OK In:10097 -> Out:1685 = 84 Prozent text/html
^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
So at least I am in the right universe.
(Oops - mod_gzip is rounding up the percentage numbers ... you rather shouldn't do this, to be accurate.)

In this special case I would have been better off with level 3, which might also consume less CPU time
(as I would believe). Even the results of level 1 look impressive (everything beyond this just grabs for one
more percent). But mod_gzip does not allow a level below 3, so you must have reasons for this.

You could do several nice things for me:
a) post some URL of a description what these levels mean. Some RFCs 1951/2 describe the file format
only, but not the algorithm. I did Google around for a while but didn't get the right search terms.
b) write something about why level 6 seems to be the one you like more than others, and maybe some
guess about CPU time consumption as function of compression level (you seem to have made tests
about this?). I remember the archive entry where someone made a performance test and got factor 10 of
requests between mod_gzip online compression and mod_gzip content negotiation with compressed
static files ... something like these numbers, maybe?
c) write something about which types of documents might profit most from which level of compression
how much, if possible. What must a document look like to need gzip level 6 instead of just 3?

mod_gzip allows a degree of freedom here which would allow the user to trade in more or less
compression for less or more CPU power - provided he knows what he is doing. Exactly this is the
goal of my post - trying to understand the meaning of this gzip level within the context of mod_gzip, i. e.
in a Web Content environment (mostly HTML, maybe XML later).
I wonder why there is no configuration parameter "mod_gzip_level" (integer, 3-9, default 6), which might
have been easy to implement - you see no need for it? If there were one, and some traffic analysis tool
(like the thingy I have started to write), one might simply set some compression level in httpd.conf, run
the site for a day or two and look at the statistics whether it might be worth to stay at this level. It's
mostly about usability once again. ;-)

If I had some easy way of modifying the compression level I might even write a site specific benchmark,
maybe convert some existing access_log into a script requesting these URLs via HTTP/1.1 and
Accept-Encoding, to have comparable results.
Having to modify the source code for this one might be the way *I* could still use, but tell this to the
Win32 users with DLL only ... after all, Win32 doesn't just ship with a C compiler.

I am asking basicly because a friend of mine tried to use mod_gzip on a rather small server (AMD
K6/700) producing a *lot* of traffic (100+GB a month) and running time consuming CGI scripts (like XML
parsing or full text phrase search), but got into CPU trouble when turning on compression (the server is
too small anyway, but the problem is here and now).
I told him to try to recompile mod_gzip with a level of 3 and test ... but it is only guessing from my side
until now, I just rembered that 3 is the minimum value but could not tell why.

win32 binary

Anonymous — Sat, 14 Sep 2002 09:58:26 -0000

well... due to my lack of c++ knowledge let me kindly
ask if there will be also a win32 binary available of the
recent and further releases