Couldn't agree more. The bottleneck on any web server *should* be the connection speed to the internet. With my ADSL connection, I'm throttled to 768Kbit ( yeah right! ) bandwidth - say 10Kbyte/sec. Most serial ports can comfortably deliver that, but it's more than enough to demonstrate demo software to prospective clients ( and I'm running apache as a vmware client, along with a mail server in another, and clustered oracle database servers in 2 more on that server! ) . Even my production sites are only delivering at about 2Mbit peak - 200 - 250 KByte/sec is still nothing with ( the system bottleneck of ) disks capable of 100 to 200 times that performance, even though the server's a couple of years old now.
<rant> The problem then comes when massive aplications are wheeled in to deliver dynamic content for those sites, requiring databases hundreds of MB in size, vast quantities of interpreted code ( well yes, OO PHP is much prettier, but it's been proved to be 4 times *slower* than the equivalent procedural code ), and so on. I see terrible performance hits again where these 'state of the art' CMS's ( rarely implemented to support the community audience they were originally intended for ) are wheeled in: why's the supporting database so huge? - why are they logging all this stuff to the database - we've got system logs, webserver logs, we're using google analytics for free, so why must we have *yet another* level of logging? Why can't developers just develop and deliver reliable, tested code instead of trying to fix life, the universe, and the kitchen sink as well! </rant> Time for a valium... (: Steve On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:49:55 +1300 Chris Hellyar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In my experience it's not apache that is bloated, it's the things people > tend to hang on the back of it. Poorly designed database apps, nasty > cgi's, ugly PHP code, lousy perl. Huge flat structured mySQL databases. > > If you want to use apache for _just_ and http daemon you can remove all > the modules from it quickly, and get it running in about 48Mb of ram > without swapping on a 486 class machine, and it'll run forever. > > On a junker celeron with 256Mb of ram you can easily hang a LAMP setup > that will serve 40-50k hits an hour without breaking a sweat as long as > your php app is well written. > > And lets face it, unless you're a masochist there's no reason for trying > to host a public website on a really low spec machine these days, even > gear a few years old now is more than enough to swing a box onto the web > for a reasonably complex app. (Without a gui that is!) > > Yes it's a challenge to get a website online using thttpd on a hacked > garage door opener, and I'm guilty of trying those things as well, but > I'd never accuse Apache of being bloated because it wouldn't run on my > TV remote! > > Just my 2c, as always.. :-) > > > > On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:04 +1300, Jim Cheetham wrote: > > On Dec 12, 2007 7:28 AM, Chris Hellyar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What did apache do to annoy everyone? Or are we severly skimping on > > > hardware spec? > > > > Apache is annoying in the same way that BIND is annoying -- it's a > > general-purpose tool that shows bloat when being used for a small > > single purpose task. > > -- Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
