httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <madhusudan_mathiha...@hp.com>
Subject RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2001 22:25:47 GMT
you're definitely right. they are not CPU-bound, but more bandwidth bound..
But my point here is that does it make sense to compare mod_ssl with
mod_gzip.. They are 2 totally differnet entities - one of them is a
requirement, and the other is welcome (if available)

-Madhu

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 3:22 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS


On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 06:06:58PM -0400, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN
(HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:
> Hi,
> 'not sure if my views hold any ground here - but I believe we should not
be
> linking mod_gzip and mod_ssl here..
> 
> mod_ssl - it's one of the modules without which lots of users (especially
> the e-commerce uses) would not even consider using Apache (forget the
> performance). It's pretty much a REQUIRED thing in a webserver.. 
> 
> mod_gzip is totally different - it certainly helps in decreasing the
> response time for the user - but it's definitely not a required thing.. 

Commerce sites that are not CPU-bound but bandwidth-bound (pay per
bit) would certainly welcome a reduction in bandwidth.  -- justin

Mime
View raw message