Comment's interspersed...
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Greg Ames
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 1:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mod_include performance numbers
"Jeffrey A. Stuart" wrote:
>
> 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.
Welcome aboard, Jeff! I hope we can convince you that we're not all out
of touch.
> We need a server that does following (in order I think.) (and
> all of this of course is IMHO):
>
> 1) A stable server
We've had apache.org running very well on Apache 2.0 for about a month
and a half now, with only two core dumps. Before that, we were on 2.0
since about Feb 15 but it was dumping so frequently
that I wouldn't call it stable. This is with the prefork mpm - the
threaded mpm's have "issues" still ;-)
Is it now... HMM... that is interesting... I didn't know that... Me thinks I
may have to download the latest beta apache and see how it behaves...
> 2) One that isn't too memory intensive out of the box.
> 3) One that is fast.
> 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.
You got me there...mod_perl isn't ready yet AFAIK.
Yes... However, please understand, I don't expect that the Apache group to
work on mod_perl... :) There are other people for that... :D
> 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.)
> 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...
> ;)
I hear you...it doesn't make sense to me either.
But I don't mind some of Apache's code being used in a separate
one-server-fits-all project. I just won't choose to spend any time
working on it myself.
I don't mind that at all myself... Make it a separate branch on CVS. :) Or a
separate project or whatever. Just not a part of apache 2.0 IMNSHO.
>
> 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...
Amen! You're preaching to the choir, in my case...
> 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.
I suspect we'll have a threaded mpm ready for prime time in a week or
so. I don't know about mod_perl.
> (And if ANYONE suggests that we
> put the current apache 2.0 out onto a production server, they ought to be
> shot. :))
Well, I agreed with you up to this point. You're going to have to shoot
me, I'm afraid, since I put Apache 2.0 up into production on apache.org
(with a lot of help from other folks on this list).
Oh, waitaminute, you said "if ANYONE suggests that WE put..." Whew, I'm
still safe :-) I didn't suggest that YOU put it up yet, without
mod_perl and a threaded mpm :-)
Well, I was under the impression that Apache 2.0 was still VERY unstable over
all of the MPMs. With the prefork MPM seeming to be stable... Hmm... I have
to wonder though if the threaded MPM will cut down on memory. I'll be VERY
curious to look at that... One thing in the back of my mind to do is setup an
apache + SOAP server and see if I can use SOAP with PHP/mod_perl and cut down
on memory... I just haven't had a chance to play with it yet...
>
> So please, let's get 2.0 stable and out the door...
>
> --
> Jeff (FurBall)
Yessir!
Greg
--
Jeff (FurBall)
WebOverdrive Newbie Tech Board
http://www.topniche.com/tech/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
