httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From André Malo ...@perlig.de>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Date Tue, 02 Mar 2004 08:22:05 GMT
* Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@apache.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
> 
> > * Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > Did you say the same thing to people asking you whether they should
> > > > upgrade from php2 to php3 to php4 to php5 Rasmus?
> > >
> > > In some cases sure if indeed that was the honest answer at the time.
> >
> > A pointer would have been nice here.
> 
> A pointer to what?  Frankly we don't have this problem in the PHP world.

So you'd still recommend to use PHP3 instead of PHP4, because it's so
stable? I don't buy that.

> It is rather the opposite.  People start using non-production versions of
> PHP before we even suggest it.  Apache2 is 2 years into its production
> server status at this point and it has approximately 5% marketshare.

(I don't know what your sources are, but I'd guess, at least you know how
these number are computed).
However, Apache 2 has a small marketshare (yet). No question. One reason is,
that people tell all the time "stick with 1.3" without seeing their
situation. How do you know that 1.3 is better for them? Where the heck does
that ignorance come from?

> Apache-1.3.x is still up around 65%.  People are not migrating in droves
> despite it being marked production-quality for 2 years and bundled as the
> default server in most major Linux distros and hence it has not become
> mainstream yet.

I'm working for a big German company which started migrating quite a long
time ago. Because it's stable and has a way better API for our own
modules. It's even faster.

Your argument doesn't apply.

> The vast majority of people
> out there use Apache-1.3.x with great success.

Oh sure. I'm looking for a hassle-free Browser. You'd recommend MSIE because
of its marketshare?
I'm looking for a hassle-free MTA. You'd recommend sendmail?

> It has been battletested
> by some of the biggest names in the business for years.

Because there was no real alternative. Now we have one. It's time to start
using it.

> I would not
> personally launch any sort of critical production site on Apache2 at this
> point

We do. And we do it very sucessfully. What you would do or not, may or may
not apply to other people. But the "don't use it at this point" you're
spreading for the last *years* is not constructive. To give a good answer
you need to first ask the guy, what he wants to do and how he wants to do.
All replies without such a reflection are ... just FUD. Not more and not
less.


> If you know what you are doing, perhaps.  But you have to understand the
> differences between the mpms to begin with.  Most of the people I run
> across who have problems with 2.0 don't even know which mpm they are
> running when I ask them.  They don't know that certain mpms don't work
> well on certain operating systems and that they shouldn't use any sort of
> threaded mpm with various combinations and configurations of third-party
> modules.  And I know all these things and I am still not convinced myself
> because I worry about the caveats I have missed.

Interesting. That people are not able to read a documentation is *really* an
essential argument.

> This complexity comes in the form of what I still consider an overly
> complicated and inefficient filter API,

Is it? Really? It's flexible and it's fast. Sure, one needs to understand
it (suprise, suprise) *if one wants to program it*. What does the end user
care?!

> the complexity of multiple mpms
> with different characteristics, the almost insurmountable complexity of
> threading if a threaded mpm is chosen and the complexity of a new codebase
> with a completely new and unfamiliar API.

Threading is really *so* new.
First, you can choose a non-threaded MPM. However, if you choose to use
worker, where the heck is the problem? Threaded MPMs are developed since
2000 (!). You mean, because mod_php is after over 3 years of time not able
to implement some mutexes, other people suffer from the same problem?

You're wrong.

> I know I annoy people who spend a lot of time on 2.0 with my seeming lack
> of enthusiam for it,

You're spreading FUD. *That's* annoying. Critics with background are always
welcome. Patches also. You know that, you're an ASF member.

> but this is one of the benefits of working on open
> source as opposed to being a proprietary software company.  Open Source is
> transparent.

Yes. Everyone can contribute. If you don't like it, just change it. Simple,
isn't it?

*sigh*

Anyway.
1.3 has many drawbacks. In its performance, in its API and in its
configuration. 2.0 fixed many of these problems and *is* *stable* for over a
year. I'd recommend any without a good reason to setup a current 2.0.

nd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
   "   from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org


Mime
View raw message