I am curious how the number of downstream customers being Windows effects
anything on the server side...

On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote:

> The fact that there is no event MPM equivalent for Windows is a huge gap for 
> 2.4.x.
> 
> Given the large percentage of our downstream customers using Windows there's 
> not a huge motivation to move to 2.4.x.
> 
> Moreover, it's my understanding that the event MPM falls back to behaving 
> like the worker MPM in SSL cases.  Is that true?  If so, then that further 
> decreases the motivation to move to 2.4.x.
> 
> Overall, given that a large portion of our downstream usages are on Windows, 
> say 50% for the sake of argument, and that a large percentage of our usages 
> are HTTPS, again say 50% for the sake of argument, the benefits of the event 
> MPM are really quite narrow in practice in our case.
> 
> That said, I didn't know or had forgotten that SSL didn't work with the 
> Windows MPM in 2.4.x.  That would be a substantial regression from 2.2.x -- 
> and resolving this would clear the way for 2.4.x being GA barring any other 
> such regressions.
> 
> --
> Jess Holle
> 
> On 8/17/2012 12:48 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> In the Announcement you'll see:
>> 
>>   NOTE to Windows users: The issues with AcceptFilter None replacing
>>         Win32DisableAcceptEx appears to have resolved starting with version
>>         2.4.3 make Apache httpd 2.4.x suitable for Windows servers.
>> 
>> NOTE: The event MPM is a *nix mpm and has never worked on Windows.
>> 
>> On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Does the event MPM now:
>>>     • Work on Windows?
>>>     • Work with HTTPS?
>>> When both are true 2.4.x will become very interesting.  Until then, not so 
>>> much over 2.2.x.
>>> 
>>> On 8/17/2012 12:34 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.3 can be found
>>>> at the usual place:
>>>> 
>>>>    
>>>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.3 GA.
>>>> NOTE: The -deps tarballs are included here *only* to make life
>>>> easier for the tester. They will not be, and are not, part
>>>> of the official release.
>>>> 
>>>> [ ] +1: Good to go
>>>> [ ] +0: meh
>>>> [ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why.
>>>> 
>>>> Vote will last the normal 72 hrs.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to