?

Log in

No account? Create an account
apache 2.2 - brad's life [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Brad Fitzpatrick

[ website | bradfitz.com ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

apache 2.2 [Dec. 1st, 2005|10:54 pm]
Brad Fitzpatrick
[Tags|]

I might finally care about Apache 2.x ....

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/new_features_2_2.html

Looks like most the stupid shit has been fixed:

-- event mpm
-- proxying load balancing (if it's good)
-- caching
-- >2GB
-- graceful stop
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: matthew
2005-12-02 07:21 am (UTC)
>> --graceful stop

that took long enough. Roxen had that.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bsdguru
2005-12-02 06:09 pm (UTC)
It's about time ;)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: idigital
2005-12-02 08:37 am (UTC)
About time, too.

It's taken way too long for mod_perl and mod_php to be stable enough on Apache2 to be used in a production hosting environment. To be honest, these should've been sorted shortly after 2.0's release.

I find it strange that the HTTPd group at the Apache Foundation pushes so hard for everyone to use 2.x, but at the same time the Foundation's mod_perl group laments its use, and recommends the 1.x branch.

The image that comes across is "use 2.x for basic things, but when you want to do more advanced things (or, hell, even use PHP), downgrade to 1.x".

It's like Microsoft telling Windows users to use XP to get going, then to install 95 if they want to have more than one hard disk, or something equally silly.

</rant>
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: daveman692
2005-12-07 10:59 am (UTC)
I don't think the PHP folks have even said they reccomend Apache 2 yet. I think they just shifted their story from advising against it to not saying much of anything.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mart
2005-12-22 09:43 am (UTC)

All of our servers at my workplace, production and otherwise, run PHP on Apache 2. It wasn't my choice; the guy who set them up is a bit “biggest version number” happy, regardless of the benefits or drawbacks. Still, it seems to work okay, but then I suppose the only reason our servers are considered to be “under load” is because they are woefully underspecced to start with.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: scosol
2005-12-02 06:53 pm (UTC)
yeah, it looks good but there are still some ghosts in the closet- in the proxy/cache stuff they follow stupid RFCs in some spots with no manual overrides, and have "fun" stuff like this:

htcacheclean can take up to an hour or more to process very large (tens of gigabytes) caches and if you are running it from cron it is recommended that you determine how long a typical run takes, to avoid running more than one instance at a time.

hmmm hope it can finish faster than the disk is filling up, and c'mon, use some locking!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dormando
2005-12-03 08:05 am (UTC)
The LB stuff is a little hard to understand? I'll have to actually run it to figure it out I think.

The min/max connection pooling options looks like it might actually be good. I have some L7-balanced image display servers which need more speed than I can get out of perlbal right now. Might try it out on them tomorrow and see what kind of results I can get.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dormando
2005-12-04 12:09 am (UTC)
Heh, nevermind. I got perlbal working fast with it finally.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lithiana
2005-12-05 02:45 pm (UTC)
i saw the release announcement for this, but i couldn't find any actual documentation on the "event mpm". is this (finally!) a select()ish mpm, or something much less interesting?
(Reply) (Thread)