httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From HyperHacker <>
Subject Re: Fast by default
Date Wed, 02 Jun 2010 02:04:20 GMT
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 16:25, Sergey Chernyshev
<> wrote:
> This sounds scary! How do large companies enable gzip then? How many hoops
> do they jump through? sounds like those hoops are in thousands!
> And I don't understand how one company's setup would be different from
> another still, even if situation is that bad as you describe it.
> What kind of trade-offs do large companies go for when they enable gzip?
> more overall traffic? no cache?
>              Sergey
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:17 PM, <> wrote:
>> > There is zero reason for us to avoid putting deflate into the default
>> > configuration.
>> Sorry. There ARE (good) reasons to avoid doing so.
>> I'm the one who wrote the FIRST mod_gzip module for Apache 1.x series
>> so you would think I'd be a strong advocate of 'auto-enablement' by
>> default,
>> but I am NOT. There is HOMEWORK involved here and most users will get
>> into deep tapioca unless they understand all the (ongoing) issues.
>> > it is also very arguable that we should leave it off.
>> Yes, it is.
>> > I think others have argued well to enable it by default.
>> Disagree. I haven't seen the 'good' argument for 'auto-enablement' yet.
>> Some of the reasons to NOT 'go there' are coming out in other
>> similar threads right now...
>> Here's a clip from the (concurrent) message thread entitled...
>> 'Canned deflate conf in manual - time to drop the NS4/Vary'
>> [snip]
>> Don't forget the ongoing issue that if you ONLY vary on 'Accept-Encoding'
>> then almost ALL browsers will then refuse to cache a response entity
>> and the pain factor moves directly to the Proxy/Content Server(s).
>> If you vary on 'User-Agent' ( No longer reasonable because of the abuse
>> of that header 'out there'? ) then the browsers WILL cache responses
>> locally and the pain is reduced at the Proxy/Content server level, but
>> pie is not free at a truck stop and there are then OTHER issues to deal
>> with.
>> The OTHER 'ongoing issue' regarding compression is that, to this day,
>> it still ONLY works for a limited set of MIME types. The 'Accept-Encoding:
>> gzip,deflate'
>> header coming from ALL major browser is still mostly a LIE. It would seem
>> to indicate that the MIME type doesn't matter and it will 'decode' for ANY
>> MIME type but nothing could be further from the truth. There is no browser
>> on the
>> planet that will 'Accept-Encoding' for ANY/ALL mime type(s).
>> If you are going to turn compression ON by default, without the user
>> having to
>> make any decisions for their particular environment, then part of the
>> decision
>> for the default config has to be 'Which MIME types?'  text/plain and/or
>> text/html only? SOME browsers can 'Accept-Encoding' on the ever-increasing
>> .js Javascript backloads but some CANNOT.
>> These 2 issues alone are probably enough to justify keeping compression
>> OFF by default. A lot of people that use Apache won't even be able to get
>> their heads around either one of these 'issues' and they really SHOULD
>> do a little homework before turning it ON.
>> Someone already quoted that...
>> 'people expect the default config to just WORK without major issues'.
>> That's exactly what you have now.
>> It's not 'broken'.
>> Why change it?
>> Kevin Kiley
>> [snip]
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Greg Stein <>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tue, Jun 1, 2010 7:40 am
>> Subject: Re: Fast by default
>> Geez, Eric. No wonder people don't want to contribute to httpd, when they
>> run into an attitude like yours. That dismissiveness makes me embarressed
>> for our community.
>> There is zero reason for us to avoid putting deflate into the default
>> configuration.
>> It is also very arguable that we should leave it off. I think others have
>> argued well to enable it by default, while you've simply dismissed them with
>> your holier-than-thou attitude and lack of any solid rationale.
>> -g
>> On May 31, 2010 8:06 PM, "Eric Covener" <> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Bryan McQuade <>
>> wrote:
>> > I propose providing an...
>> An additional httpd.conf doesn't sound valuable to me.  What slice of
>> non-savvy users would scrutinize an alternate config file, can replace
>> the config file of their webserver, isn't using a webserver packaged
>> by their OS, and wouldn't have just gotten the same information today
>> from the manual and 400,000 other websites?
>> There's currently no <ifModule> bloat in the default conf, but you're
>> welcome to submit a patch that adds one for deflate or expires (latter
>> seems more unwise to me). See the "supplemental configuration" section
>> of the generated config.
>> This doesn't address mass-vhost companies failing to allow deflate
>> because it's not in the no-args HTTPD ./configure , which sounds
>> far-fetched to me.  I can't recall a users@ or #httpd user implying
>> being subjected to such a thing with their own build or with cheap
>> hosting.
>> --
>> Eric Covener

You seem to think large corporations are competent at web design/administration.

Sent from my toaster.

View raw message