Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 53608 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jul 2001 18:13:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 53593 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2001 18:13:16 -0000 Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:12:34 -0700 From: Justin Erenkrantz To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: Tree tagged... Message-ID: <20010727091234.C18499@ebuilt.com> References: <00a301c1167d$43c631f0$8100a8c0@godzilla> <013501c11693$29a5a650$8100a8c0@godzilla> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <013501c11693$29a5a650$8100a8c0@godzilla>; from dreid@jetnet.co.uk on Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 12:56:19PM +0100 X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1-pre3 (http://amavis.org/) X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 12:56:19PM +0100, David Reid wrote: > Fix is in APR so if it doesn't break anything then I'm happy :) > > FWIW, apache 2 went into some real world testing on beos bone a couple of > days ago and outperformed the other 2 web servers available for the platform > (both considered to be production-quality) both in terms of speed and > reliability. Only place it didn't get such rave reviews was configuration. Really? Apache 2.0 is getting whupped by WebLogic (*Java EJB container*) on Solaris 8 right now. I'll probably post some performance analysis next week (no time right now - sorry). -- justin