httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeffrey A. Stuart" <jstuart-apa...@neo.rr.com>
Subject RE: Apache 2.0 final ?
Date Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:44:04 GMT
As far as I know, no he didn't.  Question, do these patches provide any help
for dynamic content?  IE PHP/mod_perl/cgi scripts?

--
Jeff (FurBall)
WebOverdrive Newbie Tech Board
http://www.topniche.com/tech/
furball@weboverdrive.com

-----Original Message-----
From: root@sco.COM [mailto:root@sco.COM]On Behalf Of Aris Stathakis
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 4:39 AM
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache 2.0 final ?

Has your friend tried the Accelerating Apache patches For  Apache 1.3?

http://oss.sgi.com/projects/apache/

It is a pity they were never integrated into the main so urce tree, but
people to use the patches rave about the perfomrnace increase.

Aris

"Jeffrey A. Stuart" wrote:
>
> Ok, I've emailed this a couple of times and I'm gonna say it once again. :)
> We NEED Apache 2.0 out ASAP.  We needed Apache 2.0 out in January.  We
needed
> a beta back last year at the end of September or October whenever the UK
> ApacheCon was.  I can't stress this enough.  Apache is starting to fall
behind
> technologically.  I have a friend of mine who had to switch from Apache to
> Zeus cause Apache couldn't handle the load.  He was only able to get a max
> throughput of 12 Mb/s out of Apache and he PERSONALLY was able to get 40
Mb/s
> out of Zeus.  AND he told me that he's heard of people doing 80 Mb/s through
> Zeus.
>
> We NEED Apache 2.0. :)  I think the multi proc/multi threaded model will
> really give some oomph to the server.  Combine that soon with mod_perl 2.0
and
> some other technologies out there and we can compete with Zeus and some of
the
> other web servers in high load applications.
>
> --
> Jeff Stuart
> jstuart@neo.rr.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:bill@wstoddard.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:52 AM
> To: new-httpd@apache.org; William A. Rowe, Jr.
> Subject: Re: Apache 2.0 final ?
>
> > From: "Brian Behlendorf" <brian@collab.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 10:01 PM
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > > Trick question, let me explain...
> > >
> > > I think people like him are asking: when is the fiddling done, and
people
> > > have a program they can start to incorporate into their operating system
> > > releases, deploy for production customers, etc?  While we're still
working
> > > on low-level issues like pools/sms in APR and fixing other big
performance
> > > issues, we're not there yet.
> >
> > Agreed, but let's not be too obsessed about performance vs. architecture.
> > If the architecture is right, optimization becomes trivial in 2.0.21, .22,
> etc,
> > so sms-enhanced pools are a precursor to a release.  Full implementation
of
> > twelve alternate memory allocation structures is not...
>
> a precursor to a release? Or not trivial? I hope it is not necessary to
fully
> implement
> twelve alternate memory blah blah before a release :-)
>
> >
> > I see very few showstoppers remaining to a general 'find the bugs' beta
> release
> > in the course of the next two weeks.  Resolving the query-scoreboard and
> getting
> > the lifetimes straightened out first is key (and sms helps with alternate
> > lifetimes.)  But I don't see any more "Big Things" to hold up 2.0.  We are
> close
> > enough to taste it.
>
> Yep.
>
> >
> > To have mod_ssl/tls all wrapped up for the general release would be
> fantastic,
> > of course, but it would be nice to know Apache 2.0 sans ssl is as solid
and
> > far superior to Apache 1.3 even before that's introduced.
>
> We definitely should not wait for SSL.
>
> >
> > If it means that we end up with a stable release in July, without the
> mod_ssl,
> > that's fine by me.
>
> Roger that.
>
> > If the next stable 2.0 incarnation rolls in mod_ssl, I think
> > everyone could live with that.  If proxy reaches stability when Apache
does,
> then
> > great, call them both stable.  Otherwise, we have Apache 2.0 stable,
> including
> > proxy beta candidate.  The parts ought to grow and stabilize on their own.
> >
> > The async and layered I/O ideas are great, and both would take some time
(6
> mos?)
> > to evolve.  But somewhere along the line we have to decide 'that's 2.1.'
>
> Sounds good to me. I agree that this should not hold up 2.0 (though I am a
fan
> of
> eventually getting both into the 2.* line).
>
> >
> > > I think it's enough to state "as soon as the showstoppers are out of
> > > the httpd-2.0/STATUS file" as a qualifier for that.  Hopefully it means
> > > folks are focusing on those issues.
> >
> > One hopes :-)  Can't forget though that it's one's own itches.  Apache
tries
> to prove
> > that many coders, pulling the oars to their own sense of rhythm, create
> something
> > worthwhile.  Some days the oars get tangled, but I think we succeed
> neverless.
>
> Heh... I recall telling Ryan on this list, around 8 months ago that
> introducing filters
> into Apache 2.0 would delay us 6 months. And Ryan said no way would filters
> delay us 6
> months, it would only be on the order of weeks.  Heh, heh... Still
> counting...Filters are
> way cool and scratch a big itch but there is a lesson here. :-/  If you want
> to see Bill
> go completely ape-shit, just propose that another big chunk-o-code like
> filters go into
> Apache 2.0 before it is released :-)
>
> Bill


Mime
View raw message