Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Message-ID: <02cc01c0ca55$d7968250$6400a8c0@godzilla>
From: "David Reid" <dreid@jetnet.co.uk>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>, <jstuart-apache@neo.rr.com>
References: <NDBBJJECCLCABPILAFECAEIKFMAA.jstuart-apache@neo.rr.com>
Subject: Re: mod_include performance numbers
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:24:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> I'd like to amen that... I'm starting to see something here that's
concerning
> me.  I think that some of the developers have lost touch with what we as
web
> admins need.  We need a server that does following (in order I think.)
(and
> all of this of course is IMHO):
>
> 1) A stable server

We're getting there on this one...

> 2) One that isn't too memory intensive out of the box.
> 3) One that is fast.

Hmm, we need to do more work on this.

> 4) One that lets us use SSI.  (LOTS AND LOTS of sites use SSI...)
> 5) One that lets us tune our heavy/light weight servers better.  (One of
the
> things that I've been waiting for is Apache 2.0 and mod_perl 2.0.  With
> Apache's threaded MPM, this LOOKS like we can really tune apache such that
our
> mod_perl procs won't be SOO big...  And with some of the stuff that was
talked
> about with mod_perl 2.0, it looks like we'll really be able to cut some
more
> of the memory out.)

Threaded MPM's may help...

> 6) One that all it basically does is serve web pages.  I do NOT need
another
> email server, another proxy server, another FTP server, another you name
it...
> ;)

Yeah, I know, I know.

>
> First, the part about making apache a multi-proto server while nice, I am
VERY
> concerned that it's gonna be holding up Apache 2.0.  Apache 2.0 is VERY
VERY
> late now... A number of my co-workers are switching to other servers
because
> apache just can't handle the load any more. :(  With 2.0, I THINK that it
> could but it's not out, so we can't find out.  (And if ANYONE suggests
that we
> put the current apache 2.0 out onto a production server, they ought to be
> shot. :))

There are a number of us who feel like this, but there are a number of
people who also have a counter view point.  It's a shame, but there it is.

>
> So please, let's get 2.0 stable and out the door...

Nice to have some more view points.  Anyone else care to drop a dime?

david