httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Fritsch ...@sfritsch.de>
Subject Re: htaccess support
Date Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:01:22 GMT
On Monday 27 September 2010, Rich Bowen wrote:
> As much as we dislike .htaccess files, they certainly seem to be
> a   necessary evil. You can disable them (although not at compile
> time), but this is simply not an option for many folks. Educating
> them when it's better to use the main config than .htaccess files
> is the job of documentation, and we've done a somewhat poor job of
> that. Perhaps that can be improved. The largest problem here is
> the HUGE number of third-party sites peddling bad advice, and I
> honestly have no idea how to address that problem.

We could disable it by default in 2.4. But there would be lots of 
screaming that we disable a "security feature" in the default 
configuration :-/
 
> It's been frequently suggested that .htaccess files could be
> improved   via some kind of "cache and only reload if the
> timestamp has changed" mechanism, but in my benchmarking, simply
> stat'ing a .htaccess file (even in cases when there's no file
> there to begin with) accounts for an awful lot of the performance
> hit of "AllowOverride All", so I don't know whether this would
> really be a solution.

Was that benchmarking in 1.3 time? I have had the experience that the 
parsing of .htaccess is *a lot* more heavy-weight in 2.x than it used 
to be in 1.3.

We once upgraded a web server from 1.3 to 2.0 that had lots of 
Redirects in the /.htaccess and the performance dropped to 50%. After 
we rearranged the redirects to be in a RewriteMap file that is only 
reread when changed, the performance went up again (slightly faster 
than it used to be with 1.3).

> For the most part, folks who need to use .htaccess files are not in
> a   position to really do much in the way of performance tuning,
> and vice versa.


Mime
View raw message