httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chuck Murcko <>
Subject Re: Last draft of for signatures...
Date Fri, 13 Jun 1997 03:06:24 GMT
With the clarification below, you can go ahead and add my signature.

Jason A. Dour wrote:
> OK.  Here's my last revision.  Hopefully everyone will like it...  PLEASE
> like it...I don't want to change this thing again...  8)
> Finally, this is a call for signatures to the letter.  I think I've
> already got everyone's name who has expressed direct interest...  Anyone
> else want on?  Send me or the list a note before ~6AM EST tomorrow.  'Kay?
> Kay,
> Jason
> # Jason A. Dour <>                            1101
> # Programmer Analyst II; Department of Radiation Oncology; Univ. of Lou.
> # Finger for URLs, PGP public key, geek code, PJ Harvey info, et cetera.
> =====
> It's always pleasing to see your product praised in print.  That's why the
> Apache Group was at first happy with the positive press it received in
> Michael Moeller's cover story, "FORT APACHE" (PCWeek, June 9, 1997)  and
> Jim Rapoza's related article, "IT'S NOT EASY.  SO WHAT?"  (PCWeek, pg18,
> June 9, 1997).  We were dismayed, however, by a statement made by Mr.
> Moeller and by what we feel to be a misleading account of Apache's
> performance in the benchmark graph from PC Week Labs.
> Mr. Moeller's article did a good job of explaining Apache's strengths and
> popularity -- until the last column.  He writes, "Anyone unfamiliar with
> hard-core Unix programming will not be able to get Apache running, said
> users."  To this statement, we must take strong exception.  Of the
> hundreds of thousands of installations of Apache, how many does Mr.
> Moeller believe to be administered by "hard-core Unix programmers?"
> Apache end-users are a diverse bunch: from computer novices, to system
> administrators of varying ability and station, to Mr. Moeller's
> "hard-core" example, to everyday people who need good solid web server
> software. Mr.  Moeller's "quote" from undisclosed "users" is a
> disappointing low-point for an otherwise well crafted article.
> As for the benchmark on page 18, we must wonder about the validity of the
> claims it made.  Microsoft's IIS is shown overall to triple the
> performance of two versions of Apache.  These figures are hard to believe.
> Internal testing as well as repeated user feedback indicates that Apache's
> performance meets or far exceeds any of the competition's.  Your labs did
> correspond with an Apache Group member in regards to tuning the server.

corresponded...and most of the competition is more truthful. 8^)

Jason, they didn't make the changes I suggested; instead they just ran
the benchmark with the default values. Sorry I didn't make this clearer.

> However, we believe the reported numbers would be much different if the
> Apache configuration were better optimized to meet the benchmark's
> performance metrics.
...or that of any sanely configured site subjected to an equivalent
> The Apache Group would welcome and appreciate having an opportunity
> to work with PC Week Labs to verify and possibly correct these
> benchmark results.  We would like to provide a configuration that
> would be more appropriate to the platform and benchmark conditions
> while remaining relatively unbiased toward the specific tests.  If
> it can be demonstrated to our satisfaction that the test environment
> was fair across the various servers, we will confirm the fact.
> Sincerely,
>  Jason A. Dour <>
>  Ken Coar <>
>  Sameer Parekh <>
>  Ben Laurie <>
>  Alexei Kosut <>
>  Dean Gaudet <>
>  Rasmus Lerdorf <>
>  Randy Terbush <>
>  Nathan Schrenk <>
> On behalf of The Apache Group.
> =====
> Version: 2.6.2
> iQCVAwUBM6C0/Zo1JaC71RLxAQGGvgP+Jj0/9WxMDZzhfwHgT+fVfZcfsuTe+sUL
> e7AHlR1paHS0XaLehvdKl3vxJKkyLhesmCOrXfKJBcKQQq3L4jI39a0lQ5dy2tV7
> xIkbKW9/R7liY9UAtXaRua8gn3F1I97LfTl22CZ9VR0/t2Ss8Bcbhn0Y4fMS3CJQ
> 6anI8YcFEj8=
> =HqIG

Chuck Murcko
The Topsail Group, West Chester PA USA

View raw message