I can agree with that. Fastest isn't always best. And it sound like both you
guys are actually saying the same thing. I don't think he want's Apache 2.0
out just cause it will be the fastest, but it will be MUCH faster than
1.3.x.
--
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 2:39 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Apache 2.0 final ?
>
>
> Reality check: Apache is intended to be speedy, but our goal
> is not to be
> the fastest. Fine, let Zeus be faster. But they aren't nearly
> as flexible
> as us. Dunno what their HTTP conformance is like, but that is
> also one of
> our goals.
>
> You could say that we aren't intending to "compete" on pure
> speed. If you
> *really* want speed, get yourself a Linux box and install TUX
> or something.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:55:49AM -0400, Jeffrey A. Stuart wrote:
> > 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
>
> --
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
>
