Make LSAPI_MAX_PROCESS_TIME variable customizable in .htaccess

[serpent_driver]

Although LiteSpeed ignores any suggestions for improvements or feature requests and doesn't even bother to comment on the interest of LSWS users, I still want to publish my suggestion for improvement because this suggestion also comes with criticism.

What is it about?
It's about the noabort and noconntimeout directives. These directives, which are actually very valuable, work very well when used correctly, but these directives are basically worthless for certain requirements. Whenever a PHP script uses PHP onboard functions such as curl, Imagick or others, the script runtime is limited by the LSAPI_MAX_PROCESS_TIME environment variable. The settings for the LSAPI_MAX_PROCESS_TIME environment variable can be changed, but these changes have a server-wide effect and therefore limit all PHP functions on a server. This is not a good idea and is also safety critical. In addition, the noabort and noconntimeout directives cannot be used due to this apparently higher-priority LSAPI_MAX_PROCESS_TIME variable. The built-in crawler of the cache plugin for WordPress is also affected by this, so the cache plugin settings in the .htaccess are equally worthless for the noabort directive.

That's why it would be a useful addition to the LSWS if the settings for the LSAPI_MAX_PROCESS_TIME variable could be defined in the .htaccess or, even better, remove this variable because it correlates with the noabort directive.

 

[ctmartin2023]

This makes complete sense. I also don't understand why the need for the environment variable in the LS config and not also possible in the htaccess like other env variables that can be set there.

I've been running into a problem lately which could only be solved by the LSAPI_MAX_PROCESS_TIME setting... it took an enormous amount of time trying to figure out why noabort and noconntimeout would not work as expected, nor would any obvious php settings on any level. Very frustrating and the documentation really didn't provide any insight.

 

[CameronWarner]

Yes, I agree with you on this.

 

[serpent_driver]

As expected, LiteSpeed does not respond to this feature request, which once again confirms that LiteSpeed does not care about the interests of paying customers. Can this be tolerated?

Of course not!

With this behavior, LiteSpeed proves once again that LiteSpeed only cares about LiteSpeed's interests, not about paying customers. LiteSpeed and the LiteSpeed employees would have had to look for another job long ago if the only driving force, the cache plugin for WordPress, did not have the unjustified acceptance.

Without this plugin, LiteSpeed would be nothing and no one would be interested in LiteSpeed!

Is it simply arrogance that LiteSpeed is not interested in this topic?