httpd-modules-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joshua Marantz <jmara...@google.com>
Subject Re: Help trying to figure out why an output_filter is not called.
Date Thu, 06 Jan 2011 03:52:09 GMT
This has certainly gotten off topic :)

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=nginx+vs+apache has
lots of interesting opinions on the subject.

Having said that, mod_pagespeed's initial target is Apache because that's
the dominant server stack driving the web.  I'm optimistic that nginx will
also be a compelling opportunity at some point and I'm anxious to learn
more.



Now -- back on topic -- this issue is tracked as
http://code.google.com/p/modpagespeed/issues/detail?id=179 for those
following along at home, and hopefully will be resolved shortly based on the
advise of the contributors to this thread.

Thanks again, everyone,
-Josh

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Ray Morris <support@bettercgi.com> wrote:

>  Just a quick note since you mentioned nginx.  Nginx is of
> course normally used by people wanting higher performance than
> they are getting from Apache, because certain tests seemed to
> suggest that nginx can significantly outperform Apache in some
> cases. If that's the case for you, we learned something very
> interesting.
>
>  We wondered how nginx could possibly be much faster since the
> speed of the disk itself is normally the limiting factor.  Was
> there something to be learned from nginx which could be applied
> to Apache?  At the end of all of the testing, we learned what
> caused the large apparent difference.  noatime.  Nginx effectively
> skips atime updates, which can make a huge difference.  By simply
> mounting the directory with the "noatime" option, any reasonable
> Apache configuration will have about the same performance as nginx,
> which is basically the performance of the underlying storage.
>
>   People build complex systems with nginx as a proxy to Apache,
> but the same or better performance, with better standards compliance
> and better reliability, can be obtained by just setting noatime
> directly rather than using getting noatime accidentally as a
> side effect of nginx.
>
>   With noatime set, one server or another might be 1% faster,
> but using TWO servers, with one as a proxy, will be slower than
> just simply using Apache, and in no case will nginx be SIGNIFICANTLY
> faster, when using noatime.
> --
> Ray Morris
> support@bettercgi.com
>
> Strongbox - The next generation in site security:
> http://www.bettercgi.com/strongbox/
>
> Throttlebox - Intelligent Bandwidth Control
> http://www.bettercgi.com/throttlebox/
>
> Strongbox / Throttlebox affiliate program:
> http://www.bettercgi.com/affiliates/user/register.php
>
>
>
> On 01/05/2011 03:16:21 PM, Ben Noordhuis wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 22:03, Joshua Marantz <jmarantz@google.com> wrote:
>> > Right you are.  That's much simpler then.  Thanks!
>>
>> My pleasure, Joshua.
>>
>> Two quick questions, hope you don't mind: Is mod_pagespeed an official
>> Google project? Or is it something you guys do on your day off? And
>> are there plans for a nginx port?
>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message