Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 48159 invoked by uid 500); 6 Sep 2001 22:36:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 48148 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2001 22:36:21 -0000 Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 15:35:58 -0700 From: Justin Erenkrantz To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS Message-ID: <20010906153558.U2482@ebuilt.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from madhusudan_mathihalli@hp.com on Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 03:25:47PM -0700 X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1-pre3 (http://amavis.org/) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 03:25:47PM -0700, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote: > 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) FWIW, we're discussing Ian's mod_gz not Remote Communication's mod_gzip since an Apache 2.0 version of mod_gzip has not been submitted to the Apache Group for inclusion. -- justin