httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey Burgoyne <>
Subject Re: Puzzling News
Date Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:37:43 GMT
Just one week ago I made the switch to 2.0 from 1.3.

I have to admit, the reasons were not overly convincing from a technical
perspective. The reasons we changed were :

1. Some know nothing consultant chided us in a erport for not upgrading to
the latest apache release, therefore strictly a polical pressure based
upon mis-information.

2. The potential proxy changes for HA in the 2.1 stream is something I
definitely wanted as management has demanded HA. While it is not there
yet, we were doing a significant hardware upgrade (single DEC Alpha to IBM
Bladecenter) and felt doing both at once would be cheaper and less

3. One important change I custon fitted into the 1.3 was a proxy timeout,
which is standard in 2.0. Not having to worry about upgrades failing was

Reasons not to change :

1. Two custom modules I built had to be redone for 2.0.

2. My group has extensive experience in 1.3.

3. Added risk to an already working system.

When all is said and done I probably would not have went to 2.0 at this
time. Nothing with the product, simply that it added some confusion to the
rollout and in reality was not worth the cost to move forward. If it was
not for the political pressure, I must honestly say I have gotten very
little out of the upgrade. Failover and LB with the proxy for 2.1 though
is something I'm dying to see.

Now on top of this, I did not change any of my back end web servers, only
the front door, which servers static content and does all the web logic.
Any dynamic content (PHP, CF, CGI's, Websphere, Domino, Webspeed, Dynamo)
are on a meriad of other boxes to which our system proxies. As it was
strictly content serving and proxying and I found little use in the
upgrade, you can imagine how people having a dynamic content based server
see the upgrade.

I guess in closing, I did like the 2.0 for reworking my modules. That
worked well. But that is from a "power users" prospective, not from your
average webmaster. I think most of the people on this mailing list are
trully developers and moving to 2.0 makes sense from a development
standpoint. From the normal users aspect, why change if it is working
fine? Honestly, take out the HA features in the 2.1, and I would not have
switched. Whats the percentage of sites planning on HA? Probably a small

Not trying to poo poo 2.0, I think it is great and required in the
marketplace. I always suspected adoption would be slow, especially from
the generic masses who use a stock out of the package installation. I've
seen nothing to convince me that will not be the case moving forward...

Jeffrey Burgoyne

Chief Technology Architect
KCSI Keenuh Consulting Services Inc

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Fascinating reading (see the bottom two tables of these pages:
> What is notable is that the number of users adopting 1.3.33 in place of 2.0 far outweighs
the number moving from 1.3 to 2.0.
> One could argue that we aren't pushing 2.x releases out fast enough.
> I'd argue the opposite, we aren't refining 2.x sufficiently for folks to garner an advantage
over using 1.3.  It simply isn't more effective for them to use 2.0 (having tried both.)
> Consider this as we prepare to announce to the world 2.1-beta.  Are folks going to be
more impressed with 2.1-beta (in spite of it's wrinkles that a beta always introduces) than
what they used before?
> For anyone who wants to argue that this is a PHP-caused anomaly, note also
> And in sunny news, about 9.6% of domains are hosted on Apache/2[...],
> with another 14.24% of Apache users not revealing their version
> (1.x vs 2.x).
> Bill

View raw message