On Jun 2, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Sergey Chernyshev wrote: > No, I'm not overthinking it - as Bryan mentioned before, hosting providers > are not configuring stuff and relying on httpd project to provide viable > defaults.
Have you considered that the default settings are fine for the vast majority of deployments? Even for hosting services? > They are in business of selling services, not development and best practices > on the web and that slows down improvements (in this case performance). What slows down improvements for everyone, hosters and users alike, is the putrid mess in existence on the client side and the requirement that we target the lowest common denominator. As we have once again learned this week, even Deflate is not something that we can just enable in the expectation that it will work with all clients. Your hoster is likely not interested in fielding angry phone calls from their customers, whose customers' pages inexplicably don't load right because of a problem in the way they handle transfer encoding. That's a business decision for them: wetware staffing the phone or a potential increase in bandwidth. If your performance requirements outstrip the (technical or service) capabilities of your hoster, you'll have to look for other options. It seems to me that the hosting market is extremely commoditized at this point: there should be plenty of choice. If you still need more performance, you'll get your own infrastructure which you can then configure to your heart's desire. > It's another part of performance movement to help them decide and show that > gzip saves more money in traffic then it takes in CPU, for example. Documentation and education are good. Improving the documentation is especially good, since it ships with every server. I believe you have already started working on that: good idea. S. -- Sander Temme scte...@apache.org PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
