httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergey Chernyshev <sergey.chernys...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Fast by default
Date Wed, 02 Jun 2010 19:06:49 GMT
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>wrote:

> On 6/2/2010 9:59 AM, Sergey Chernyshev wrote:
> >
> > Right now they don't have this option with majority of
> > the h[o]sting providers simply because the module is not compiled.
>
> That is a pretty sweeping generalization.  There is no picture here of
> which do and which do not, nor is there an understanding of why the
> hosting providers would have elected not to allow these.
>
> Hosting providers must balance their demands on ram (cache), bandwidth
> and the rest, in a way that doesn't lend itself to casual users meddling
> with such settings.  If you aren't able to provision software as root,
> there are good reasons that you shouldn't be tweaking certain modules
> in httpd, either.  Most of the open issues I'm aware of for untrusted
> administrators have to do with further limiting the options available
> to such hosting account users, not granting them permissions to set up
> unwise configurations that will impact other users of the same boxes.
>
> We can certainly ensure that modules 'most' includes such things as the
> expires and deflate modules, if it does not today.  Although I'm not a
> fan of changing those elections for 2.2, since users are used to what
> they are enabling and disabling.  For 2.4?  Sure, let's make sure that
> happens.
>

I'm not a person to show you urgency here, but I have a feeling that 2.4 is
2-3 years away from production web sites (correct me if I'm wrong here). And
it might be too long to wait for these fundamental performance
optimizations.

I think the question of compiling in all the modules is more pressing, but
default configuration can be pushed to 2.4 while being an "advisory" in 2.2.

I suspect you may be overthinking the problem as something that the
> httpd project can solve for end users of our users.  We can't.  Our
> users are the administrators who provision our software, and what they
> allow to shared hosting users is entirely up to them.
>

No, I'm not overthinking it - as Bryan mentioned before, hosting providers
are not configuring stuff and relying on httpd project to provide viable
defaults.

They are in business of selling services, not development and best practices
on the web and that slows down improvements (in this case performance).

It's another part of performance movement to help them decide and show that
gzip saves more money in traffic then it takes in CPU, for example.

Thank you,

         Sergey

Mime
View raw message