Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C725518368 for ; Wed, 27 May 2015 20:43:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 15615 invoked by uid 500); 27 May 2015 20:43:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 15551 invoked by uid 500); 27 May 2015 20:43:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 15541 invoked by uid 99); 27 May 2015 20:43:21 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 May 2015 20:43:21 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 9A45D1A35A3 for ; Wed, 27 May 2015 20:43:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.011 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-us-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w041HPuT2kZP for ; Wed, 27 May 2015 20:43:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (mail.greenbytes.de [217.91.35.233]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id A925424CE8 for ; Wed, 27 May 2015 20:43:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.55] (unknown [84.189.80.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 311F815A015A for ; Wed, 27 May 2015 22:42:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Eissing Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: 2.2 and 2.4 and 2.6/3.0 Message-Id: <1A8F2B37-7075-4580-A070-2F61B537DC51@greenbytes.de> Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 22:42:09 +0200 References: <3B5B5636-7EAB-4EC6-A1C9-8B541B3CAA8C@jaguNET.com> In-Reply-To: To: "dev@httpd.apache.org" X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12F70) Not wanting to boast, but maybe mod_h2 for httpd 2.4 can play a role in moti= vating people to migrate away from 2.2.=20 I have not looked into having it work on 2.2 and no interest in doing so. If= we get the ALPN support into 2.4.13, mod_h2 can be just "dropped in" to suc= h a server. And distros will have an incentive to include it. In what amount that might influence 2.2 migrations, probably no one can fore= tell. And I have not the insight to what all others reasons for migration ar= e, not knowing enough about the differences myself. I just want to point out= that it can be one selling point among others. As to how to sell it: I have made some performance tests and published some n= umbers based on my single dev installation. It could certainly help to get s= ome more numbers in a more real world like env to either have a story to tel= l - or find out what still needs to be done. What is floating around in the net are numbers from eithers servers no one c= an install (google) or servers that focus on http2 like h2o or nghttpd. But t= hose are not general purpose servers, serve often only static files and some= times even fail under load. I'm not saying they are bad implementations (far= from it), there just not in the domain as httpd. cheers, Stefan > Am 27.05.2015 um 19:26 schrieb Jeff Trawick : >=20 > one thing it means is having compelling stories involving the latest hot t= ech that use 2.4