httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.3 as GA
Date Sat, 18 Aug 2012 13:39:21 GMT

On Aug 17, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Jess Holle <jessh@ptc.com> wrote:

> "Downstream customers" in my case means customers that will deploy Apache and our products
on their own servers.  In a great many cases these servers run Windows.
> 

Ahh. That explains it.

The Windows MPM is designed to be the most optimal implementation
for Windows servers, dedicated and specific to Windows. What is
it about the Windows MPM which is inadequate to your or your
client's needs? We have direct access to Microsoft engineers,
so I think they would also be curious as well. MS is quite
interested in ensuring Apache httpd runs extremely well on
Windows.

> The clients in most cases are Windows too, but that's a different matter entirely.
> 
> On 8/17/2012 3:12 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I am curious how the number of downstream customers being Windows effects
>> anything on the server side...
>> 
>> On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Jess Holle <jessh@ptc.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> The fact that there is no event MPM equivalent for Windows is a huge gap for
2.4.x.
>>> 
>>> Given the large percentage of our downstream customers using Windows there's
not a huge motivation to move to 2.4.x.
>>> 
>>> Moreover, it's my understanding that the event MPM falls back to behaving like
the worker MPM in SSL cases.  Is that true?  If so, then that further decreases the motivation
to move to 2.4.x.
>>> 
>>> Overall, given that a large portion of our downstream usages are on Windows,
say 50% for the sake of argument, and that a large percentage of our usages are HTTPS, again
say 50% for the sake of argument, the benefits of the event MPM are really quite narrow in
practice in our case.
>>> 
>>> That said, I didn't know or had forgotten that SSL didn't work with the Windows
MPM in 2.4.x.  That would be a substantial regression from 2.2.x -- and resolving this would
clear the way for 2.4.x being GA barring any other such regressions.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Jess Holle
>>> 
>>> On 8/17/2012 12:48 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> In the Announcement you'll see:
>>>> 
>>>>   NOTE to Windows users: The issues with AcceptFilter None replacing
>>>>         Win32DisableAcceptEx appears to have resolved starting with version
>>>>         2.4.3 make Apache httpd 2.4.x suitable for Windows servers.
>>>> 
>>>> NOTE: The event MPM is a *nix mpm and has never worked on Windows.
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Jess Holle <jessh@ptc.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Does the event MPM now:
>>>>> 	• Work on Windows?
>>>>> 	• Work with HTTPS?
>>>>> When both are true 2.4.x will become very interesting.  Until then, not
so much over 2.2.x.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 8/17/2012 12:34 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>>> The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.3 can be found
>>>>>> at the usual place:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.3 GA.
>>>>>> NOTE: The -deps tarballs are included here *only* to make life
>>>>>> easier for the tester. They will not be, and are not, part
>>>>>> of the official release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [ ] +1: Good to go
>>>>>> [ ] +0: meh
>>>>>> [ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Vote will last the normal 72 hrs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>> .
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message