launchd plist for Apache HTTPD that actually works?
 

I've been doing some reading on-line - I find lots of people who claim to have a working solution, however, none of their solutions actually work for me. I'm hoping someone on here can help me out.

I have a working solution for PostgreSQL and Tomcat, that lets me start/stop those services, and ensure they launch on startup. Apache HTTPD seems to be giving me issues.

My apache httpd software is installed at /usr/local/apache2 and I can start/stop it all day long with /usr/local/apache2/bin/apachectl start||stop, so I know my install is good.

More info about my install:

APACHE (2.2.13)
./configure --enable-most --enable-auth-dbm --enable-cern-meta --enable-dav --enable-dav-fs --enable-dav-lock --enable-expires --enable-headers --enable-info --enable-mime-magic --enable-isapi --enable-proxy --enable-proxy-ajp --enable-proxy-balancer --enable-proxy-connect --enable-proxy-ftp --enable-proxy-http --enable-rewrite --enable-so --enable-speling --enable-ssl --enable-unique-id --enable-usertrack --enable-vhost-alias

So anyway - a working file to put in /Library/LaunchDaemons would be greatly appreciated (:

Lingon may help you do what you want.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/lingon/files/

Yeah, didn't work ):

Something wrong with the pre-installed version of Apache?

I dunno, I've never tried to use it....but it doesn't have anything to do with the topic or the problem I'm trying to solve (:

You're asking how to make httpd launch at boot time. Since the pre-installed version of httpd works fine by checking the box in Sharing it would seem that the easiest course of action would be delete the version in /usr/local and use Apple's.

I've been using the out-of-the-box httpd ( version 2.2.11 ) on a development server since last year. Works just fine.

No, I'm asking how to get the version httpd *I INSTALLED* launch at boot time, *USING LAUNCHD* (I can already make it launch using other methods). Big difference.

Sure - but that's not what I'm trying to do and does not accomplish my objectives.

I'm happy that doing so meets your needs.

Impatient snarkiness is sure to attract further answers.

No snarkiness intended - merely pointing out that the "solution" offered isn't actually a solution to the problem stated.

back on track... can you post the launchd plist you're using? I have a suspicion about what the problem is, but I'd like to see the XML first. also, are you getting any errors in console? try running the command launchctl start <jobname> from the command line and see what console has to say.

Thanks. Well, I've tried several versions - not sure I've kept them. Generally, when something doesn't work, I delete it and look for another solution. In the "best" cases, I was able to use launchctl to "load" and "unload" - and got no warnings and nothing interesting in the console. Let me make a fresh attempt and dig around and see what I come up with. Hold on....

OK - so here console:
I've tried specifying a username of nobody and _www - obviously I don't want it running as root. The plist that resulted in the above is as follows:

FWIW, I've also tried cloning the plist apple provides for its stock apache install, modifying it appropriately, with no better luck. I've ALSO tried plists specifying using /usr/local/bin/apachectl and not had any luck with that either.

I got that. And I asked what the problem was with the well-behaved version of apache that came with your machine.

Note that NovaScotian intends sarcasm. All capitals, asterisks and the like don't make people want to like you.

the only issues I see with your plist file (at first blush) are as follows:

• OnDemand should be false (in fact, it shouldn't be there at all, unless you're using a Tiger machine; it's deprecated)
• you might want to try adding an OnLoad key, set to true. that tells launchd to run the job when it's first loaded
• I don't think the UserName key is necessary. when I look at my system, there are two httpds running - one as root and one as _www, so I assume that the httpd program itself (when run as root) sets up the _www instance
• you have two ServiceDescription keys. I imagine launchd would ignore the ServiceDescription key normally, but having two identical keys might in-and-of itself cause the plist to fail (plist XML wants unique keys).

I'll also point out that using apachctl is (maybe) not diagnostic in this case. from man apachectl:
that suggests to me that apachectl start would actually run the default os X apache install, not your version. add that the errors you're getting look a whole lot more like a httpd error than a launchd error, and you might want to double-check your httpd.conf file and the permissions settings on the various apache files.

let me add that it's not the easiest thing diagnosing these problems from afar, and it doesn't help if you get frustrated with the answers you're getting. if someone asks you a question that doesn't seem to help, it's either because:

• they know something that you don't, and they're trying to get you to see it, or
• you know something they don't, and they want you to tell them that so they can understand the problem better

I'll dare to say that when it comes to servers I'm definitely a MacOSXHints B-string player. if you alienate the A-string people, you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot.

I never indicated there was a problem with the version that ships from Apple....

Thanks for your help (:

OK, I'll play around on these issues, see what I come up with.

I think what they're getting at there is if you have it in a non-standard directory RELATIVE TO the rest of the apache install. In my case, I have a standard (stock) apache directory structure, and it is even located in the default /usr/local/apache2 directory. So, I'm default all the way around. When I run /usr/local/bin/apachectl start, it uses the /usr/local/apache2/conf/httpd.conf file, /usr/local/apache2/htdocs directory, etc. It's obvious this is so, based on its behavior.

Well, I know the httpd.conf is fine (its basically a stock file at this point) because a). It runs fine when I just do "apachectl start" from the prompt, and b). It runs fine when I launch it "the old way" as a StartupItem. So, I don't think that file is the issue.

I'll try to keep that in mind - but if people want to feel alienated for some reason, it's not really within my sphere of control.

TW:

I think I got it. Not sure exactly what the issue was - I made some of the changes you recommended (all at once) and it would seem that some or all of those changes did the trick. The plist now looks like this:

I think you were right about the UserName not being required (although I use it for Postgres and Tomcat successfully). Inspecting the process list indicates one root httpd process and a bunch owned by daemon:
Doesn't look like I am getting the "spawning too fast" problem I've seen people getting either (pict attached - resource consumption seems normal).

So - this issue seems resolved. Thanks for your help (:

LOL - get a good night's sleep, read that line again in the morning, and see if it still sits well with you. there's a value in respecting other people's feelings, you know, even when you don't believe those feelings are justified.

glad you got it working though. :)

Hey, I respect peoples' feelings - I just don't control them. People can't even control their OWN feelings, let alone someone elses'.

Thanks again for your help (:

FWIW, I also got several start/stop scripts for apache, postgres and tomcat to work, using launchd, using:

sudo launchctl load /usr/local/LaunchDaemons/whatever.plist and
sudo launchctl unload /usr/local/LaunchDaemons/whatever.plist

So, now I have it both ways - launch on start if I put put in links at /Library/LaunchDaemons and manual control otherwise. This is what I was looking for.

wow, see... now you've got the philosopher in me ticking away. that sounds suspiciously like you're saying you don't respect people (or at least not people who have emotions). Yes, of course, people can't control their own feelings - all they can do is acknowledge them or suppress them, and suppressing them is decidedly unhealthy. And yes they do have a right to ask other people to acknowledge their emotions as well (or at least, the refusal to acknowledge someone else's emotions is a fairly harsh insult - I'd guess that easily half of the divorces in the world occur because one spouse refuses to acknowledge the other's emotions).

Plus, I'll point out that the phrase "I can't control other people's emotions" only ever gets uttered as part of an effort to make others feel self-conscious about being emotional, which (paradoxically) clearly is an effort to control their emotions.

I mean, I understand: you want something, you want to be all business-like about it, you don't want people to ask you questions that you've already decided aren't important, you're short with people who try... all well and good, except I suggest the next time you have a problem you go to your local computer store. Professional techs get paid good money to put up with that attitude.

Frankly, you're starting to make me feel bad that I helped you for free. If you give me your address I'll send you a bill for services rendered; we can do PayPal. $50 sound good? that's about half what they'd have charged you somewhere else for the same fix, and you got better, quicker service...

Wow! I think you're reading way too much into things. If you would please show me what was I said to whomever it was I said it to that was so hideously awful, so non-respecting and feeling trampling, that would be great - because I really have no idea.

Reviewing the thread, I see:

1). Agentx offered a suggestion and I indicated that it didn't work.

2). acme.mail.order asks a question about software that is not the subject of the thread or related to the question originally asked. I responded that I didn't use that software, and pointed out that it isn't the software I'm working with, with respect to the question asked.

3). acme.mail.order misstates the problem stated, and then suggests that not using the software I am trying to use will solve the problem that is the subject of the original post - and points out that this solution works fine for him. I point out that he misstates the problem at hand, and that his alternative doesn't actually solve the problem at hand, and that I am glad he has a solution that works for him.

4). NovaScotian chimes in with a snarky off topic comment. I respond to his comment, pointing out that my previous response to acme.mail.order was not intended to be snarky, but merely pointed out that acme.mail.order's solution wasn't really a solution to the problem at all - but a substituted process that doesn't meet my objectives in trying to solve the problem as originally stated.

5). you chime in with an on-topic helpful tip. I respond with some additional information about the problem.

6). acme.mail.order again posts a question unrelated to the problem at hand. I respond, again, to his question, indicating that I never said there was "a problem" with the stock software.

7). During that exchange, you chime in again with some on-topic help. I respond to some points in your post with additional information, use some of your information to work on the problem, and post additional information, indicating the problem is resolved.

That's how I see it. If there is some soul-crushing, disrespecting, feeling trampling commentary in there, I fail to see where.

well, I can see that you're a bit upset, but I really can't control your emotions... :p:p:p:p:p

burrrrrnnnned! yeah, baby; doin' my victory dance! bom-chicka-bom-chicka-chika-bom-bom

really, you didn't do anything that bad, you were just kind of short with people. for instance, when acme (whom you may not know is very good with these things) asked you why you weren't using the built in apache module, it would have been nice if you gave a short explanation of why you were doing it the more difficult way. I'm sure you have a reason (even if it's just 'I started doing it this way, and I'd like to finish it, because I'm stubborn like that'), and saying that out loud would have made the context understandable, and gotten everyone focussed on the problem you wanted to solve, rather than focussed on what you weren't telling them. Some kinds of information help explain the problem directly, but other kinds of information help explain why other (perfectly viable, and sometimes easier) solutions aren't appropriate. If you don't tell people why you don't want to do easy solution A, they're probably not going to help you with difficult solution B; would you help a friend carry a couch up three flights of stairs when there's an elevator right next to you? doubtful, not without a good explanation. see what I mean?

Well, not really.

By the way - he didn't ask me WHY I wasn't using the shipped version. He asked me what was wrong with it - and I did respond - that there is nothing wrong with it (as far as I know).

Nothing wrong with it.

Nothing. Nothing wrong with it.

Rather obvious - and not too insightful. OF COURSE that would be "easier". So would not concerning myself with Apache at all. However, that's not the issue and not the problem I am trying to solve. The "easy" solution is not always the best solution - and is often not even a solution at all.

I didn't go into any explanation of WHY I am not using it because not only was that not what he asked, but also because I didn't see any point in going on about some off-topic sub-thread justifying what and why and how and so forth, defending my decision NOT to just use whatever Apple decides to bless its users with and whatever else. Besides that, it had nothing to do with the problem at hand anyway. Aside from all that, it should be pretty obvious that if someone WANTS to use whatever Apple decides to bless its users with, then he/she/it/they will just go ahead and use it. Once the decision to NOT use it has been made, then the WHY of that decision is rather moot - esp. when it has no bearing on the problem at hand.

I simply disagree. You're saying that I should have done just what I described above - justify my personal decision NOT to use whatever Apache Apple chooses to ship, a decision which really has nothing to do with the problem stated. It's apples and oranges.

If someone doesn't want to help work on a problem - then fine - don't help. However, when I ask for help fixing my car and someone tells me I should just take my motorcycle instead - that's not really helping at all. If you want to talk about respecting people, then start with the idea of respecting them enough to consider that they might actually have good reasons for the things that they do and they don't need to justify themselves to you (or anyone else), ESPECIALLY when those reasons, as good or bad as they may be, have nothing to do with the correct solution to the problem as stated.

1) I'm making no statement at all about what happened in this particular thread.

2) If you ask for help on a public forum, then you should respond to requests for more information about the "why" of your request. An explanation of the "why" is often the most important part of the post.
It is very often the case that people ask for help about some specific thing when there is an easier way to accomplish their higher level goal. (i.e. their business-level goal, e.g. to be able to create a web site with such & such feature)

No, I was saying that you should explain why the simple solution is not an option. 80% of the people who come to this forum are having problems because they just simply don't know that the simple solution exists or is usable. You may be the exception to that rule, but we don't know that you're the exception to the rule until you give us a reason why you're doing things the hard way. Sorry, but you're just a name on the screen to me; I don't know you, I don't know your skill level, and so I have to work with you on a neophyte level until I understand how much more you know. Them's the breaks.

With computers, having *good reasons* for your actions simply isn't sufficient. I've seen people (more than a few) read something on the internet, decide they had *good reasons* to make some change to their system, and end up wiping their hard drive, shorting out their motherboard, locking themselves out of their systems, or creating other tragically annoying problems for themselves. I'm more than happy to credit you with having *good reasons*, but I don't want to help you muck up your system because your *good reasons* are based on *faulty information*.

and I'll point out: if you had put one fourth of the effort into explaining yourself in the first place, that you've currently put into defending yourself, we'd all be happy and this conversation would be done.

Explaining why you don't want to use the pre-installed version of Apache would have taken substantially less effort (and produced far less bad karma) than the rant in #20 and #22.

And your analogy about cars and motorbikes doesn't work - the version difference (2.2.13 vs. 2.2.11) you are working with is more like socket vs. box-end wrenches

If you restrict "the difference" between running a customized version of apache httpd server that is the same on all of one's platforms and having an "odd man out" that is NOT your customized version, but whatever version a particular vendor happened to ship at a particular time, as nothing more than a version number - then yes, I agree.

Leaving out that no one asked me WHY I want to configure, compile and install a standard and customized version of Apache HTTPD server in a standard location on all of the platforms I maintain (or WHY I suddenly want to try using launchd instead of using StartupItems, like I've been doing) - I just don't connect those dots. For example - take this guy with the Eudora problem: http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=105066

It's not necessary for anyone to ask him WHY he wants to run Eudora instead of the mail client that ships with the OS for them to help him with his Eudora issue. Nor does KNOWING why he wants to run Eudora help solve his Eudora problem. The WHY of what he wants to do has nothing to do with the HOW to fix the issue he is having. Nor is it incumbent upon a potential helper to point out to him that the OS comes with a mail client, and that he should use it unless he has very good reasons not to. I was able to help him solve his Eudora problem - and I have no idea why he wants to run Eudora. It is likely I will never know...but I could take some good guesses.

We did, just not that bluntly. But as you seem to prefer coarse, direct questions:

Why do you want to do this? What is the benefit of going to all this extra effort? What does your version of Apache do that the Apple-supplied version doesn't? Why do you need an Apache server on "all the platforms you maintain?" (how many platforms are there?)

What difference does it make? How does that possibly affect "correct solution" to a working .plist for launchd and the version I have installed at /usr/local?

My reasons are completely irrelevant to the solution - much like the gentlemen with the Eudora problem.

This thread is exhausted, in my view. onceagain simply doesn't get it.

I agree - entirely.

I have been following this thread from start to finish and have not made any comments. However, I must say that even though OS X is Unix, it is a brand of Unix which Apple made it's own. There are many reasons Apple does this, and being a Linux guy originally and learning to use OS X Server I have realized that there are generally good reasons they do this.

Now, when I have had to reinstall MySQL server, or Apache and do so in a different directory I typically do so, then make sure ownership and permissions are set and then just create symbolic links from the existing software to the newly installed software. This way all original config files are still parse as normal but instead of them linking to the built in stuff they link to the newer installs.

I can't say that this is even the best method, but it did work for me when I had to install a different version of MySQL.

A little explanation helps a lot, especially when trying to gauge your higher goals.

well, I tried. as of now I consider that onceagain owes me $50 bucks for services rendered. If and when he pays up, I'll consider helping him again.