I've done similar tests and received same results. I don't think Zeus is
bad, but why pay for something it it's as kick ass as Apache is.
--
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey A. Stuart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 10:56 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ?
>
>
> Ok, I've emailed this a couple of times and I'm gonna say it
> once again. :)
> We NEED Apache 2.0 out ASAP. We needed Apache 2.0 out in
> January. We needed
> a beta back last year at the end of September or October
> whenever the UK
> ApacheCon was. I can't stress this enough. Apache is
> starting to fall behind
> technologically. I have a friend of mine who had to switch
> from Apache to
> Zeus cause Apache couldn't handle the load. He was only able
> to get a max
> throughput of 12 Mb/s out of Apache and he PERSONALLY was
> able to get 40 Mb/s
> out of Zeus. AND he told me that he's heard of people doing
> 80 Mb/s through
> Zeus.
>
> We NEED Apache 2.0. :) I think the multi proc/multi threaded
> model will
> really give some oomph to the server. Combine that soon with
> mod_perl 2.0 and
> some other technologies out there and we can compete with
> Zeus and some of the
> other web servers in high load applications.
>
> --
> Jeff Stuart
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:52 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; William A. Rowe, Jr.
> Subject: Re: Apache 2.0 final ?
>
>
> > From: "Brian Behlendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 10:01 PM
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > > Trick question, let me explain...
> > >
> > > I think people like him are asking: when is the fiddling
> done, and people
> > > have a program they can start to incorporate into their
> operating system
> > > releases, deploy for production customers, etc? While
> we're still working
> > > on low-level issues like pools/sms in APR and fixing
> other big performance
> > > issues, we're not there yet.
> >
> > Agreed, but let's not be too obsessed about performance vs.
> architecture.
> > If the architecture is right, optimization becomes trivial
> in 2.0.21, .22,
> etc,
> > so sms-enhanced pools are a precursor to a release. Full
> implementation of
> > twelve alternate memory allocation structures is not...
>
> a precursor to a release? Or not trivial? I hope it is not
> necessary to fully
> implement
> twelve alternate memory blah blah before a release :-)
>
> >
> > I see very few showstoppers remaining to a general 'find
> the bugs' beta
> release
> > in the course of the next two weeks. Resolving the
> query-scoreboard and
> getting
> > the lifetimes straightened out first is key (and sms helps
> with alternate
> > lifetimes.) But I don't see any more "Big Things" to hold
> up 2.0. We are
> close
> > enough to taste it.
>
> Yep.
>
> >
> > To have mod_ssl/tls all wrapped up for the general release would be
> fantastic,
> > of course, but it would be nice to know Apache 2.0 sans ssl
> is as solid and
> > far superior to Apache 1.3 even before that's introduced.
>
> We definitely should not wait for SSL.
>
> >
> > If it means that we end up with a stable release in July,
> without the
> mod_ssl,
> > that's fine by me.
>
> Roger that.
>
> > If the next stable 2.0 incarnation rolls in mod_ssl, I think
> > everyone could live with that. If proxy reaches stability
> when Apache does,
> then
> > great, call them both stable. Otherwise, we have Apache 2.0 stable,
> including
> > proxy beta candidate. The parts ought to grow and
> stabilize on their own.
> >
> > The async and layered I/O ideas are great, and both would
> take some time (6
> mos?)
> > to evolve. But somewhere along the line we have to decide
> 'that's 2.1.'
>
> Sounds good to me. I agree that this should not hold up 2.0
> (though I am a fan
> of
> eventually getting both into the 2.* line).
>
> >
> > > I think it's enough to state "as soon as the showstoppers
> are out of
> > > the httpd-2.0/STATUS file" as a qualifier for that.
> Hopefully it means
> > > folks are focusing on those issues.
> >
> > One hopes :-) Can't forget though that it's one's own
> itches. Apache tries
> to prove
> > that many coders, pulling the oars to their own sense of
> rhythm, create
> something
> > worthwhile. Some days the oars get tangled, but I think we succeed
> neverless.
>
> Heh... I recall telling Ryan on this list, around 8 months ago that
> introducing filters
> into Apache 2.0 would delay us 6 months. And Ryan said no way
> would filters
> delay us 6
> months, it would only be on the order of weeks. Heh, heh... Still
> counting...Filters are
> way cool and scratch a big itch but there is a lesson here.
> :-/ If you want
> to see Bill
> go completely ape-shit, just propose that another big
> chunk-o-code like
> filters go into
> Apache 2.0 before it is released :-)
>
> Bill
>
>
