httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Peter J. Cranstone" <cranst...@remotecommunications.com>
Subject RE: 2.0.23 tarballs up
Date Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:13:34 GMT
>> It would really stink to discover that prefork 2.0 is way slower or
has a much bigger memory footprint than 1.3

To garner more acceptance of Apache 2.0 it would probably be smart to
run some sample test configs of 1.3.x vs. 2.x and publish the actual
performance metrics. 

It's now a marketing job to convince people that the new features are
worth moving to. The real key is going to be performance. It needs to be
at least 10% faster (preferably higher than that) before people are
going to start porting all their modules etc over.

Just my opinion.

Regards

Peter J. Cranstone


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:bill@wstoddard.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 8:04 AM
To: new-httpd@apache.org; rbb@covalent.net
Subject: Re: 2.0.23 tarballs up


+1 for beta.  -1 for GA.

Our announcement letter for the beta should clearly state that the
server API is stable and third party module authors can begin porting
their modules to this code base and that the beta is a candidate for GA.
If this beta holds up in the field for a few weeks, then declare it
golden. Cliff's comments regarding known problems should go into the
announcement letter too.

We've been running apache.org for months with fewer and fewer problems
with each rev. A number of other folks are sucessfully running httpd 2.0
on production sites. I believe the prefork beta -will- hold up. One
thing that concerns me... Do we have a good feel for the performance and
memory differences between prefork 2.0 and 1.3?  It would really stink
to discover that prefork 2.0 is way slower or has a much bigger memory
footprint than 1.3. Some capacity planning info would be good to have...

Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Bloom" <rbb@covalent.net>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>; "Cliff Woolley" <cliffwoolley@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: 2.0.23 tarballs up


>
> Okay, now its time for me to agitate things again.  (I know, people 
> are asking when I stopped agitating).  :-)
>
> I want to go production.  This server has more useful changes than 
> just threads, and I don't believe that not having a threaded MPM 
> should stop us from going into production.  So, I believe I have seen 
> at least three +1s for beta, and I will be number 4.  +1 for beta.
>
> I'm starting a new trend.
>
> +1 for GA.
>
> Ryan
>
> On Friday 10 August 2001 00:32, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 02:13:46AM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > > > The tarballs for 2.0.23 are up at http://dev.apache.org/dist/.  
> > > > Please check them out...
> > >
> > > Compiles and runs on Linux 2.4.  So, +1 for beta.
> > >
> > > I'll try to find time tomorrow to compile it on Solaris, but 
> > > things are slightly out-of-kilter over here, so I doubt that will 
> > > happen.
> >
> > It builds and runs fine on Solaris 2.6 (tested threaded MPM).  The 
> > only warnings are those stupid "function declaration is not a 
> > prototype" messages that've been around for months that I can't 
> > figure out how to fix, and they only appear in maintainer mode 
> > anyway, plus a single warning that appears in both maintainer and 
> > regulard modes: "sockets.c:269:
> > warning: passing arg 2 of `connect' discards qualifiers from pointer
> > target type".  That one's been around forever and a day also.  No
harm
> > done.
> >
> > It also concur that it builds fine under Linux 2.4 (RHL7.1), and 
> > same for FreeBSD 4.3.  The only warnings on either are the tmpnam() 
> > vs. mkstemp() warnings for the htpasswd and htdigest support 
> > programs.  I didn't try running it on icarus, but it runs fine on my

> > Linux box, plus it passes all the mod_include tests from httpd-test,

> > which I view as important since mod_include utilizes so many 
> > features of the server.  I tested both the prefork and threaded 
> > MPMs.
> >
> > It even compiles and runs on Irix 6.5.  =-)  The only warnings 
> > (besides harmless linker warnings I'm chalking up to the busted 
> > build environment we have on our SGIs) were these:
> > threaded.c: In function `ap_mpm_run':
> > threaded.c:1216: warning: int format, pid_t arg (arg 4)
> > mod_status.c: In function `status_handler':
> > mod_status.c:492: warning: int format, long int arg (arg 3)
> > mod_status.c:572: warning: int format, pid_t arg (arg 5)
> > mod_status.c:649: warning: int format, pid_t arg (arg 5)
> >
> > And me with this pain in all the diodes down my left-hand side...
> >
> >
> > +1 for beta.
> >
> > --Cliff
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> >    Cliff Woolley
> >    cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
> >    Charlottesville, VA
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
_____
> Ryan Bloom                        rbb@apache.org
> Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>


Mime
View raw message