httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthieu Estrade <>
Subject Re: Httpd 3.0 or something else
Date Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:34:40 GMT
Woow =) Very nice and interesting thread =)

It's very hard to think how to design httpd 3.0 before knowing what is
the real aim of this new webserver. Many feedback here are from very
spoted problems.
I've started at the end of 1.3 and the beta release of 2.0, and i must
say that applicative architectures and needs from people changed a lot.
Imho, the real question is what we want to do with it ? Still a very
flexible and compatible web server, providing interface for many
languages, with a very interesting API to develop modules ? Running in
the performances issues like nginx, httpd, haproxy or some others
webservers/load-balancers/reverseproxies can do ? Provide event based
design to process event driven application and infrastructure like xmpp
? Able to do Soap or webservice routing message ?
What about the non http protocol like ftp, or smtp tested during summer
code ? The tentation to have a powerful core that we could adapt to any
protocol we want...

Imho, i don't see how to stay competitive without an mpm to handle event
driven application, which could also solve many performances/reliability
Then maybe have two big categories like delivery (reverse proxy, load
balancing, content caching, gzip/deflate etc.) and applications and
languages (php, perl, python, ruby, external filters etc.).

my 2 cts.


Graham Leggett wrote:
> Jean-Marc Desperrier wrote:
>> Last time I've heard about a large scale server thinking about switching
>> from Apache to lighttpd, the one problem that site wanted to solve was a
>> massive number slow clients simultaneously connected to the server, with
>> the http server mostly just serving as a pipe between the client and
>> php, and where the ideal solution had to consume as little resource per
>> client as possible.
>> Did the admin of that site just miss what the solution should have been
>> to handle this properly with Apache ?
> Dedicated reverse proxy servers like varnish have appeared to solve this
> problem, and apparently work quite well for the narrow problem they are
> designed to solve (I say apparently because we're still at the evaluate
> stage on this).
> I would prefer in the long term that the two-layered approach wasn't
> necessary, which is why I am so keen to make sure httpd v3.0's
> architecture can optionally do what varnish does out of the box.
> Regards,
> Graham
> --

View raw message