Search results

Ok! Much better thank you. So far it seems to behave normally again. If anything else pops-up I'll report it. Again thanks.

I believe I choose the freebsd 4/5 version when I down loaded it, but from the file name, yes its called i386-freebsd". When I double check here's the md5 hash of the file I down loaded: 9c897c22f1b16e052f9e601fb12104b7 Thanks for the help...

Hello, Support?

I'm having trouble getting a working 3.1.1 upgrade to 3.2.4 to work on freebsd5.4. The install script initially reported errors finding several files located under /usr/compat/linux which I created symbolic links to under /usr/local/lib and resolved those errors, but the server still fails...

:| Ok, the new download worked, but my faith in LiteSpeedtech Q&A just suffered. thanks.

I just ran a cmdline upgrade from 2.2.5 to 3.1. Although the upgrade appeared to finish fine, and all virtual hosts appear to be online, I can not access the admin console any longer. Its reporting a 503 error under firefox. stderror file reports last entries of this...

Goodbye! This post is hardly relevant to lsws server conf so I'll be brief and only post this once. It's unusual for a product manufacturer to take a stance on how their product is to be used, but it is not unprecedented nor restricting in a political sense. During every major world...

It sounds like did a real upgrade from 5.4 ->6.0 on the same box? Bad mojo maybe. My 6.0 was a fresh install without Apache running. Based on your errors, do you have httpd running on port 80?

docuemnt is really spelt document :-)

I concur with xing's assessment and the links, I made the same during the install. I'm not using 6.0 in production so I haven't seen the issues discussed, but not trying that hard I guess.

I'm also using the freebsd package. During the setup I recall having to create 3-4 soft links but I forget what exactly they were. Basically just creating links to similar library files. After creating each soft link I could go another step throught the install routine until it finished.

For the record, litespeed (all recent versions) works just fine under FreeBSD 6.0 for me, with the only exception of the SSL.

Thanks, I was a little concerned that other sessions would be significantly interupted even though I don't expect heavy traffic. Shortly after posting this I read another thread here where you referred the poster to Dynamically configured mass virtual hosting with Apache, and this is very...

I'm pondering how to build an application where by new sites are spawned off of the parent domain for example: "http:www.localhost" will now include "http:anothersite.localhost" and maybe "http:3rdsite.localhost" Using litespeed I can imagine scripting this out, but I'm concerned...

I too would like to see this feature as an option. Although its only "security through obscurity" its still camouflage and its another layer of defense. The biggest risk of allowing the service banner is google hackers and automated tools targeting the web server based on brand. Still why...

I see. Well thats both a blessing and a curse. Easier to manage now that I know I don't need openssl, and a curse in that if anything else such as the potential SSL 2.0 Rollback (CAN-2005-2969) http://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20051011.txt comes out. I can avoid all this work...

Does this mean, so long as I have my certificate, it doesn't matter if/what version of openssl is installed?

Here is that cmd result. I presume it shows everything in order? www# ldd lshttpd lshttpd: libcrypt.so.2 => /usr/lib/libcrypt.so.2 (0x281eb000) libm.so.2 => /usr/lib/libm.so.2 (0x28203000) libc.so.4 => /usr/lib/libc.so.4 (0x28219000) www# I can use freebsd...

I'm building a new litespeed server from scratch and ran into a problem with openssl. Everytime I define a listener to be secured with a certificate the server fails to start, and no useful debuging info is logged under /conf/error.log; why? I know from the changelog that .9.7h is supported...

rats! :? litespeed proxied just fine, but for anyone attempting to do what I did don't bother, it wont work. Microsoft's Remoe Desktop Web Connection or RDP via IIS does not tunnel the RDP session over port 80. Rather it merely sends the requestor an Activex version of the remote desktop...