> I'd like to amen that... I'm starting to see something here that's
concerning
> me. I think that some of the developers have lost touch with what we as
web
> admins need. We need a server that does following (in order I think.)
(and
> all of this of course is IMHO):
>
> 1) A stable server
We're getting there on this one...
> 2) One that isn't too memory intensive out of the box.
> 3) One that is fast.
Hmm, we need to do more work on this.
> 4) One that lets us use SSI. (LOTS AND LOTS of sites use SSI...)
> 5) One that lets us tune our heavy/light weight servers better. (One of
the
> things that I've been waiting for is Apache 2.0 and mod_perl 2.0. With
> Apache's threaded MPM, this LOOKS like we can really tune apache such that
our
> mod_perl procs won't be SOO big... And with some of the stuff that was
talked
> about with mod_perl 2.0, it looks like we'll really be able to cut some
more
> of the memory out.)
Threaded MPM's may help...
> 6) One that all it basically does is serve web pages. I do NOT need
another
> email server, another proxy server, another FTP server, another you name
it...
> ;)
Yeah, I know, I know.
>
> First, the part about making apache a multi-proto server while nice, I am
VERY
> concerned that it's gonna be holding up Apache 2.0. Apache 2.0 is VERY
VERY
> late now... A number of my co-workers are switching to other servers
because
> apache just can't handle the load any more. :( With 2.0, I THINK that it
> could but it's not out, so we can't find out. (And if ANYONE suggests
that we
> put the current apache 2.0 out onto a production server, they ought to be
> shot. :))
There are a number of us who feel like this, but there are a number of
people who also have a counter view point. It's a shame, but there it is.
>
> So please, let's get 2.0 stable and out the door...
Nice to have some more view points. Anyone else care to drop a dime?
david
