On Aug 17, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote: > "Downstream customers" in my case means customers that will deploy Apache and > our products on their own servers. In a great many cases these servers run > Windows. >
Ahh. That explains it. The Windows MPM is designed to be the most optimal implementation for Windows servers, dedicated and specific to Windows. What is it about the Windows MPM which is inadequate to your or your client's needs? We have direct access to Microsoft engineers, so I think they would also be curious as well. MS is quite interested in ensuring Apache httpd runs extremely well on Windows. > The clients in most cases are Windows too, but that's a different matter > entirely. > > On 8/17/2012 3:12 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> . >> >
