Re: Apache 2.4 adoption revisited -- now 16.4% of Apache sites

[Jim Jagielski]

That's cool to know! Thx.

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Kurt Newman  wrote:
> 
> If it’s any consolation, cPanel changed our default web server from 2.2 to 
> 2.4 on May 2015.  We still see a large percentage of customers using 2.2 
> though.
> 
>> On Feb 15, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Eric Covener  wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Eric Covener  wrote:
>>> I stumbled on this link that Bill had shared previously and went back
>>> to look at previous snapshots:
>>> 
>>> March 2014: 2.0: 4.1%, 2.4: 4.3%
>>> 
>>> http://web.archive.org/web/20140327151641/http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all
>>> 
>>> Today (March 2015) : 2.0: 2.8%, 2.4: 16.4%
>>> 
>>> http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all
>> 
>> Just happened to search for this two weeks earlier than last year.
>> 2.0: 1.9%, 2.2: 66.8%, 2.4: 31.3%
>> 
>> -- 
>> Eric Covener
>> cove...@gmail.com
> 

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption revisited -- now 16.4% of Apache sites

[Luca Toscano]

Hi Mike!

2016-02-23 1:29 GMT+01:00 Mike Rumph :
>
> The migration of the configuration files will require a bit of effort*,* but 
> it will definitely *be* worth it in *terms* of *performance* and long term 
> maintainability.
>
>
Corrected, thanks for the suggestion! I also replaced all the occurrences
of "latest" with "current" to be more consistent with the website's
nomenclature.

I am not seeing a big opposition to this idea in dev@ so I believe that the
next step is to discuss the complete patch in docs@ to reach a final
version.

Thanks!

Luca

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption revisited -- now 16.4% of Apache sites

[Mike Rumph]

On 2/22/2016 3:40 PM, Luca Toscano wrote:



2016-02-21 15:55 GMT+01:00 Luca Toscano >:



Would it be worth to add a small banner on each documentation page
for 2.2 stating something like:


Patch attached with a very high level idea of what I would like to do. 
I have modified the "retired" banner for 2.2 to suggest the readers a 
migration to 2.4. Wording might not be correct but please let me know 
if you like the idea!


Luca


Hello Luca,

The idea looks good to me.

Here is a first look nitpick at one of the sentences:

"The migration of the configuration files will require a bit of effort 
but it will definitely worth it in term of performances and long term 
maintainability."


==>

The migration of the configuration files will require a bit of effort*,*  but 
it will definitely*be*  worth it in*terms*  of*performance*  and long term 
maintainability.

Thanks,

Mike

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption revisited -- now 16.4% of Apache sites

[Luca Toscano]

2016-02-21 15:55 GMT+01:00 Luca Toscano :
>
>
> Would it be worth to add a small banner on each documentation page for 2.2
> stating something like:
>

Patch attached with a very high level idea of what I would like to do. I
have modified the "retired" banner for 2.2 to suggest the readers a
migration to 2.4. Wording might not be correct but please let me know if
you like the idea!

Luca
Index: style/manual.en.xsl
===
--- style/manual.en.xsl (revision 1731196)
+++ style/manual.en.xsl (working copy)
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
 ISO-8859-1
 
 
-
+
 
 
 
Index: style/xsl/common.xsl
===
--- style/xsl/common.xsl(revision 1731196)
+++ style/xsl/common.xsl(working copy)
@@ -317,11 +317,8 @@
 
 
 
-
-http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/;>
-
-
-
+http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/upgrading.html;>
+
 
 
 
Index: style/lang/en.xml
===
--- style/lang/en.xml   (revision 1731196)
+++ style/lang/en.xml   (working copy)
@@ -151,10 +151,11 @@
 
 Please note
 
-This document refers to the 2.0 version of 
Apache httpd, which is no longer maintained. Upgrade, and 
refer to the current version of httpd instead, documented at:
+This document refers to the 2.2 version of 
Apache httpd that is still maintained but not actively developed. Please 
upgrade to the latest version of Apache httpd to get performance improvements 
and new features. The migration of the configuration files will require a bit 
of effort but it will definitely worth it in term of performances and long term 
maintainability.
+
 
-Current release version of Apache HTTP 
Server documentation
-You may follow this link 
to go to the current version of this document.
+Upgrading to the latest version of 
Apache httpd
+You may follow this link 
to go to the latest version of this document.
 
 
 

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption revisited -- now 16.4% of Apache sites

[Kurt Newman]

If it’s any consolation, cPanel changed our default web server from 2.2 to 2.4 
on May 2015.  We still see a large percentage of customers using 2.2 though.

> On Feb 15, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Eric Covener  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Eric Covener  wrote:
>> I stumbled on this link that Bill had shared previously and went back
>> to look at previous snapshots:
>> 
>> March 2014: 2.0: 4.1%, 2.4: 4.3%
>> 
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20140327151641/http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all
>> 
>> Today (March 2015) : 2.0: 2.8%, 2.4: 16.4%
>> 
>> http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all
> 
> Just happened to search for this two weeks earlier than last year.
> 2.0: 1.9%, 2.2: 66.8%, 2.4: 31.3%
> 
> -- 
> Eric Covener
> cove...@gmail.com



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption revisited -- now 16.4% of Apache sites

[Luca Toscano]

Hi Eric,

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Eric Covener  wrote:
>
> Just happened to search for this two weeks earlier than last year.
> 2.0: 1.9%, 2.2: 66.8%, 2.4: 31.3%
>
>
Would it be worth to add a small banner on each documentation page for 2.2
stating something like:

"The 2.2.x branch is still supported, but the cutting edge development and
new features are on 2.4.x. Please check
https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/upgrading.html to discover what changes
are required for the migration.
The upgrade requires a bit of effort but it is worth it in terms of httpd
performance and manageability in the longer term."

I believe that it could help informing/remembering people about the great
benefits of migrating to 2.4

Luca

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption revisited -- now 16.4% of Apache sites

[Eric Covener]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Eric Covener  wrote:
> I stumbled on this link that Bill had shared previously and went back
> to look at previous snapshots:
>
> March 2014: 2.0: 4.1%, 2.4: 4.3%
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20140327151641/http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all
>
> Today (March 2015) : 2.0: 2.8%, 2.4: 16.4%
>
> http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all

Just happened to search for this two weeks earlier than last year.
2.0: 1.9%, 2.2: 66.8%, 2.4: 31.3%

-- 
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption revisited -- now 16.4% of Apache sites

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:28:35 +1000
Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
 
 Time to think about EOL'ing 2.2 maybe since its 10 years old and 2.4
 has been current stable best production recommendation for what,
 about 3.5 years or so now, that would see adoption rates grow ;) 

That would be altogether reasonable, if the currently adopted and still
widely supported operating systems shipped 2.4, but it isn't so.  While
the adoption of 2.2 is all tied into current operating systems, we
aren't about to forego security patches to such widely used code.

Something to rethink when 2.4 starts to seriously catch up and surpass
the 2.2 deployments.

The EOL of 2.2 will occur, just as with 2.0, and with 1.3, when you can
no longer find a subset of the httpd project members and committers to
do any maintenance for the branch.  I'm guessing that the inflection
point is much closer to 2 years away than 12 months from now.

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption revisited -- now 16.4% of Apache sites

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:54:16 -0400
Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:

 I stumbled on this link that Bill had shared previously and went back
 to look at previous snapshots:
 
 March 2014: 2.0: 4.1%, 2.4: 4.3%
 
 http://web.archive.org/web/20140327151641/http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all
 
 Today (March 2015) : 2.0: 2.8%, 2.4: 16.4%
 
 http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all

They've added some sweet graphing features as well...

http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_details/ws-apache/2.4

Note the fast fall off of 2.4.10 is mirrored and amplified by 2.4.12
pickup.

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption revisited -- now 16.4% of Apache sites

[Jacob Perkins]

I can tell you at cPanel, we’ve had our default Apache version as 2.2 for a 
long time.  We’ll be making a change to make 2.4 the default on new 
installations soon.  Currently, we have around 90% of our clients on 2.2.  By 
the end of next year, I’m looking to have 90% of our customers on 2.4.

This should help adoption rates :)
—
Jacob Perkins
Product Owner
cPanel Inc.

jacob.perk...@cpanel.net mailto:jacob.perk...@cpanel.net
Office:  713-529-0800 x 4046
Cell:  713-560-8655

 On Mar 12, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
 
 On 13/03/2015 02:54, Eric Covener wrote:
 
 I stumbled on this link that Bill had shared previously and went back
 to look at previous snapshots:
 
 March 2014: 2.0: 4.1%, 2.4: 4.3%
 
 http://web.archive.org/web/20140327151641/http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all
  
 http://web.archive.org/web/20140327151641/http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all
 
 Today (March 2015) : 2.0: 2.8%, 2.4: 16.4%
 
 http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all 
 http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all
 
 
 Time to think about EOL'ing 2.2 maybe since its 10 years old and 2.4 has been 
 current stable best production recommendation for what, about 3.5 years or so 
 now, that would see adoption rates grow ;)
 
 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Apache 2.4 adoption revisited -- now 16.4% of Apache sites

[Eric Covener]

I stumbled on this link that Bill had shared previously and went back
to look at previous snapshots:

March 2014: 2.0: 4.1%, 2.4: 4.3%

http://web.archive.org/web/20140327151641/http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all

Today (March 2015) : 2.0: 2.8%, 2.4: 16.4%

http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all



-- 
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption revisited -- now 16.4% of Apache sites

[Noel Butler]

 

On 13/03/2015 02:54, Eric Covener wrote: 

 I stumbled on this link that Bill had shared previously and went back
 to look at previous snapshots:
 
 March 2014: 2.0: 4.1%, 2.4: 4.3%
 
 http://web.archive.org/web/20140327151641/http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all
  [1]
 
 Today (March 2015) : 2.0: 2.8%, 2.4: 16.4%
 
 http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all [2]

Time to think about EOL'ing 2.2 maybe since its 10 years old and 2.4 has
been current stable best production recommendation for what, about 3.5
years or so now, that would see adoption rates grow ;) 

 

Links:
--
[1]
http://web.archive.org/web/20140327151641/http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all
[2] http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all

Apache 2.4 adoption: Hackathon 11:00am Mon 2/25 Roundtable

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

Just a reminder that I'd like to take all this feedback and gather
further dev discussion at the hackathon this coming Monday to get
us closer to 2.4 (and perhaps, a more quickly-adopted 2.6/3.0).
Please join if you can get to Portland this coming Monday :)

TIA,

Bill


On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 16:44:43 -0600
William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:

 I've found the following data summary very useful in terms of
 drill-down capability;
 
 http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.2/all
 http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all
 
 while their breakdown/segmentation tabulations provide some
 interesting data such as;
 
 http://w3techs.com/technologies/breakdown/ws-apache/operating_system
 
 The very limited 'free' tabulation remaining from SecuritySpace 
 seems to back up this assessment;
 
 http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/201301/servers.html
 
 There seems to be a worthwhile discussion about the challenges
 presented by 2.4 which have adversely affected its adoption, 
 during the ApacheCon Hackathon Mon 2/25 in Portland.  I'd like
 to set aside time about 11am for that discussion for anyone who 
 wants to participate.
 
 Once we take away some good information from that roundtable,
 it would be worthwhile to hold a BoF later in the week especially
 for end users who are looking at or challenged by adopting 2.4.
 
 

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption

[Christophe JAILLET]

Le 05/02/2013 23:44, William A. Rowe Jr. a écrit :

I've found the following data summary very useful in terms of
drill-down capability;

http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.2/all
http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all

while their breakdown/segmentation tabulations provide some
interesting data such as;

http://w3techs.com/technologies/breakdown/ws-apache/operating_system
I first thought that not providing windows binaries could be an 
explanation. The link above clearly show that I'm wrong.



Anyway, just my 2 cents:

- providing packages, as already discussed in the list
== would ease distro update or end user installation

- providing windows binaries or at least providing a link where 
they can be found (http://www.apachelounge.com ?)
== could help people do some testing or set up small web servers within 
companies. I think that many companies are running such servers for 
there own use, and that they can not be measured by the links above or 
by netcraft.


- when I google to find some doc on parameters or so in apache, I 
arrive most on the time on the 2.2 documentation on apache.org. Could 
these 'old' pages state that the 2.4 serie is available

== would encourage users to update

- could it be useful to have in apache an automatic check for the 
availability of a newer version ?
- it could be logged in errorLog or could send an email to the 
server administrator to encourage him to upgrade

- maybe just a line in mod_status
== would encourage administrators of small server to upgrade. IMO, 
wouldn't have an impact on larger companies which should already keep an 
eye on bug fix releases or new major version


- I've read in the list that one of the reason could be the lack of 
support for some modules in 2.4. Could it be useful to have a module 
that would harvest some data in oder to let the apache community know 
which modules are really in use ? A kind of mod_feeback that would send 
conf file or parts of it to an apache.org server ?
== better knowing what is used, would help to see what is missing or 
what should be cared at
== could be linked to modules.apache.org to define a kind of module 
popularity on running systems

== ... but would require time to analyze

- providing some benchmarks that compare 2.2 and 2.4 to show the 
speed impact of using mod_event or other new functionalities. To show 
the evolution of memory requirement.

== would provide figures explaining why it worse upgrading

- add some new functionalities
== automatic crash report ?
== provide a GUI for conf file management ?
== allow errorlog to be stored within a database to potentially ease 
research within log ?



Hope that some ideas are interesting.

CJ

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption

[Graham Leggett]

On 09 Feb 2013, at 10:05 AM, Christophe JAILLET christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr 
wrote:

 Anyway, just my 2 cents:
 
- providing packages, as already discussed in the list
 == would ease distro update or end user installation

We already provide packages for RPM based distributions, and have documented it 
too: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/platform/rpm.html

The problem is that other major modules don't, and this delays adoption until 
they do. Subversion is a good example, while they have a number of people 
providing distributions, only Summersoft (that I know of) provides drop in 
replacement for the OS supplied subversion binaries, and the last release they 
packaged was for the v1.6 series. The other binaries have manual install steps, 
or deploy to strange non standard places, and this requires lots of 
documentation and education. You can't just drop the binaries into your 
internal yum repository and say yum update, end users have to explicitly 
download a different package to what they're used to, and then fiddle with 
paths to get access to it, and this is a big barrier to adoption.

Regards,
Graham
--



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption

[Kevin A. McGrail]

On 2/7/2013 2:47 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote:

On 02/06/2013 01:47 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

I won't be able to make the session but would add that because of a lack
of mod perl support with 2.4, we have not fully embraced it.


I have created lot of patches to build mod_perl with httpd-2.4 and 
sent them upstream. Unfortunately during the last year, there was 
nobody to review them or comment them. Few hours ago I've even ported 
new auth API to mod_perl and I'm going to send it upstream too. There 
were also people who offered their help on mod_perl mailing list with 
no response.
And I appreciate that a lot!I'm not trying to be negative on 
mod_perl, just stating a major hurdle we have to deploying 2.4.


Yesterday I have asked in mod_perl IRC channel to get the commit 
permissions so I could merge my patches with their (really old and 
unusable with current httpd-2.4) httpd24 branch and they agreed. Now 
I'm waiting for mail from PMC to get the permissions.

That is EXCELLENT news.


The problem is that I have little experience with Perl or mod_perl. 
I'm trying to improve current situation, but I don't want to be the 
upstream, because I'm not active mod_perl (or even Perl) user.


So to sum it up, I think the only reason why there's no mod_perl for 
httpd-2.4 is that there are no people who would have time (or be 
interested) in maintaining it.
I think there is a bit of a hurdle for me to even figure out how the 
code works because I still have never gotten even a patched version to 
compile.   I'll see if I can pick back up on the conversation on the MP 
list and get it compiled. I've given quite a few dozen hours to looking 
at your patches, compiling, recompiling different perls (just to make 
sure that wasn't the issue), etc.


Regards,
KAM

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption

[Jan Kaluža]

On 02/06/2013 01:47 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

I won't be able to make the session but would add that because of a lack
of mod perl support with 2.4, we have not fully embraced it.


I have created lot of patches to build mod_perl with httpd-2.4 and sent 
them upstream. Unfortunately during the last year, there was nobody to 
review them or comment them. Few hours ago I've even ported new auth API 
to mod_perl and I'm going to send it upstream too. There were also 
people who offered their help on mod_perl mailing list with no response.


Yesterday I have asked in mod_perl IRC channel to get the commit 
permissions so I could merge my patches with their (really old and 
unusable with current httpd-2.4) httpd24 branch and they agreed. Now I'm 
waiting for mail from PMC to get the permissions.


The problem is that I have little experience with Perl or mod_perl. I'm 
trying to improve current situation, but I don't want to be the 
upstream, because I'm not active mod_perl (or even Perl) user.


So to sum it up, I think the only reason why there's no mod_perl for 
httpd-2.4 is that there are no people who would have time (or be 
interested) in maintaining it.


Maybe there is someone here who loves that project so much that he could 
actually help maintaining it?


Regards,
Jan Kaluza


Might be others in a similar boat!
Regards,
KAM

William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:

I've found the following data summary very useful in terms of
drill-down capability;

http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.2/all
http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all

while their breakdown/segmentation tabulations provide some
interesting data such as;

http://w3techs.com/technologies/breakdown/ws-apache/operating_system

The very limited 'free' tabulation remaining from SecuritySpace
seems to back up this assessment;

http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/201301/servers.html

There seems to be a worthwhile discussion about the challenges
presented by 2.4 which have adversely affected its adoption,
during the ApacheCon Hackathon Mon 2/25 in Portland.  I'd like
to set aside time about 11am for that discussion for anyone who
wants to participate.

Once we take away some good information from that roundtable,
it would be worthwhile to hold a BoF later in the week especially
for end users who are looking at or challenged by adopting 2.4.

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption

[Issac Goldstand]

On 07/02/2013 07:54, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
[snip]

I also wonder if this would have been different if the httpd project
had offered an rpm or apt-get packages, for example?  It seems like
there will always be a significant lag between a new major.minor
release and seeing it injected into the major distributions.



This has been the case for a while, and kinda makes sense, I think.  I 
mean, would we build on the latest and greatest compilers, just because 
they had big new shiny features?


Probably not.  We like stability in time-tested compilers.

Same for many end-user sysadmins.

  Issac

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption

[Issac Goldstand]

On 07/02/2013 09:47, Jan Kaluža wrote:
[snip]

The problem is that I have little experience with Perl or mod_perl. I'm
trying to improve current situation, but I don't want to be the
upstream, because I'm not active mod_perl (or even Perl) user.


[snip]



Maybe there is someone here who loves that project so much that he could
actually help maintaining it?

Regards,
Jan Kaluza


If I make it to AC (still unsure, unfortunately) and have some time at 
the hackathon (also iffy), I'd be happy to lend a pair of hands and/or 
eyes to help review your changes.  Will you be there?


Though I've done XS development, a bit of mod_perl stuff in the past and 
httpd, I don't have time to turn that into a long-term commitment.



  Issac

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption

[Jan Kaluza]

- Original Message -
 On 07/02/2013 09:47, Jan Kaluža wrote:
 [snip]
  The problem is that I have little experience with Perl or mod_perl.
  I'm
  trying to improve current situation, but I don't want to be the
  upstream, because I'm not active mod_perl (or even Perl) user.
 
 [snip]
 
 
  Maybe there is someone here who loves that project so much that he
  could
  actually help maintaining it?
 
  Regards,
  Jan Kaluza
 
 If I make it to AC (still unsure, unfortunately) and have some time
 at
 the hackathon (also iffy), I'd be happy to lend a pair of hands
 and/or
 eyes to help review your changes.  Will you be there?

I'm afraid I won't be there :(, but I will try to upload and clean all
my patches before that, so if you guys will manage to do something with
mod_perl, you can base it on my work. I can also be online on IRC during
the hackathon.

 Though I've done XS development, a bit of mod_perl stuff in the past
 and
 httpd, I don't have time to turn that into a long-term commitment.

It would be awesome to have someone who understands XS to comment my
patches, because I'm basically learning it on mod_perl and even when it
works, I'm not sure I've done the best decisions or the best way
how to do things.

I'm more than happy to contribute to mod_perl, but not to maintain itt
(at least not for now).

 
Issac
 

Jan Kaluza

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption

[Stefan Fritsch]

On Wednesday 06 February 2013, p...@talk21.com wrote:
 How many Linux distros ship httpd 2.4?
 
 Fedora 18 is their first release to include httpd 2.4.  Since
 Fedora is often an early adopter of new releases, I expect 2.4
 hasn't trickled down to other distributions yet, e.g. RHEL,
 CentOS.
 
 It looks like 2.4 has only got as for as Debian experimental:
 http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=apache

The major blocker for Debian was also the missing mod_perl. But the 
2.4 release also happened at a somewhat unfortunate point of time in 
the Debian release cycle, so that it would have been a tight race to 
get 2.4 in shape in time for Debian 7.0. But right now Debian is 
frozen due to the (hopefully soon) release and no major changes are 
made in the unstable or testing branches.

And since Ubuntu and all other derivative distributitions pull their 
packages from one of these two branches from Debian, none of them is 
getting 2.4 before Debian has released 7.0. At least not unless they 
invest significant time themselves to do the packaging and testing.

 Ubuntu haven't adopted it yet:
 http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=apache
 
 Of course the next question could be why have distros not adopted
 2.4, is it just a matter of time or are there other factors?

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption

[Jess Holle]

For myself the compelling feature of 2.4 is the event MPM.

But it doesn't work on Windows (nor is there an alternative to 
thread-per-request processing there).  And when HTTPS is used its still 
thread-per-request.  And of course I need to know mod_jk works 
absolutely flawlessly with the event MPM too...


So in the end the even MPM is not all that compelling yet -- for me at 
least.


There are a few other features in 2.2 that'd be nice to have, but the 
big draw just isn't complete enough in scope.


--
Jess Holle

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption

[pfee]

How many Linux distros ship httpd 2.4?

Fedora 18 is their first release to include httpd 2.4.  Since Fedora is often 
an early adopter of new releases, I expect 2.4 hasn't trickled down to other 
distributions yet, e.g. RHEL, CentOS.

It looks like 2.4 has only got as for as Debian experimental:
http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=apache

Ubuntu haven't adopted it yet: http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=apache

Of course the next question could be why have distros not adopted 2.4, is it 
just a matter of time or are there other factors?





 From: Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com
To: dev@httpd.apache.org; William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net 
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 0:47
Subject: Re: Apache 2.4 adoption
 

I won't be able to make the session but would add that because of a lack of 
mod perl support with 2.4, we have not fully embraced it. 

Might be others in a similar boat! 
Regards,
KAM


William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
I've found the following data summary very useful in terms of
drill-down capability;

http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.2/all
http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all

while their breakdown/segmentation tabulations provide some
interesting data such as;

http://w3techs.com/technologies/breakdown/ws-apache/operating_system

The very limited 'free' tabulation remaining from SecuritySpace 
seems to back up this assessment;

http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/201301/servers.html

There seems to be a worthwhile discussion about the challenges
presented by 2.4 which have adversely affected its adoption, 
during the ApacheCon Hackathon Mon 2/25 in Portland.  I'd like
to set aside time about 11am for that discussion for anyone who 
wants to participate.

Once we take away some good information from that roundtable,
it would be worthwhile to hold a BoF later in the week especially
for end users who are looking at or challenged by adopting 2.4.

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption

[Graham Leggett]

On 06 Feb 2013, at 12:22 PM, p...@talk21.com wrote:

 How many Linux distros ship httpd 2.4?
 
 Fedora 18 is their first release to include httpd 2.4.  Since Fedora is often 
 an early adopter of new releases, I expect 2.4 hasn't trickled down to other 
 distributions yet, e.g. RHEL, CentOS.
 
 It looks like 2.4 has only got as for as Debian experimental:
 http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=apache
 
 Ubuntu haven't adopted it yet: 
 http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=apache
 
 Of course the next question could be why have distros not adopted 2.4, is it 
 just a matter of time or are there other factors?

Speaking for myself, the major barrier to adoption for me is support by third 
party modules.

What I mean by support is that the third party module has completed httpd 
v2.4 support, and has made a formal release of code with this support in place, 
and that code is stable. Further to that, the dependent modules must also be 
available as OS packages. It has been many years since I deployed naked make 
install code onto a box, formal packaging and the ability to roll forward and 
roll back is mandatory for me, and it has taken a while for these packages to 
appear.

Regards,
Graham
--



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:22:45 + (GMT)
p...@talk21.com wrote:

 How many Linux distros ship httpd 2.4?
 
 Fedora 18 is their first release to include httpd 2.4.  Since Fedora
 is often an early adopter of new releases, I expect 2.4 hasn't
 trickled down to other distributions yet, e.g. RHEL, CentOS.
 
 It looks like 2.4 has only got as for as Debian experimental:
 http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=apache
 
 Ubuntu haven't adopted it yet:
 http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=apache
 
 Of course the next question could be why have distros not adopted
 2.4, is it just a matter of time or are there other factors?

That is part of what I'd like to learn Monday if any active distro
or packaging people are at the ApacheCon Hackathon.

I also wonder if this would have been different if the httpd project
had offered an rpm or apt-get packages, for example?  It seems like
there will always be a significant lag between a new major.minor
release and seeing it injected into the major distributions.

Apache 2.4 adoption

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

I've found the following data summary very useful in terms of
drill-down capability;

http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.2/all
http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all

while their breakdown/segmentation tabulations provide some
interesting data such as;

http://w3techs.com/technologies/breakdown/ws-apache/operating_system

The very limited 'free' tabulation remaining from SecuritySpace 
seems to back up this assessment;

http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/201301/servers.html

There seems to be a worthwhile discussion about the challenges
presented by 2.4 which have adversely affected its adoption, 
during the ApacheCon Hackathon Mon 2/25 in Portland.  I'd like
to set aside time about 11am for that discussion for anyone who 
wants to participate.

Once we take away some good information from that roundtable,
it would be worthwhile to hold a BoF later in the week especially
for end users who are looking at or challenged by adopting 2.4.

Re: Apache 2.4 adoption

[Kevin A. McGrail]

I won't be able to make the session but would add that because of a lack of mod 
perl support with 2.4, we have not fully embraced it. 

Might be others in a similar boat! 
Regards,
KAM

William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:

I've found the following data summary very useful in terms of
drill-down capability;

http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.2/all
http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all

while their breakdown/segmentation tabulations provide some
interesting data such as;

http://w3techs.com/technologies/breakdown/ws-apache/operating_system

The very limited 'free' tabulation remaining from SecuritySpace 
seems to back up this assessment;

http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/201301/servers.html

There seems to be a worthwhile discussion about the challenges
presented by 2.4 which have adversely affected its adoption, 
during the ApacheCon Hackathon Mon 2/25 in Portland.  I'd like
to set aside time about 11am for that discussion for anyone who 
wants to participate.

Once we take away some good information from that roundtable,
it would be worthwhile to hold a BoF later in the week especially
for end users who are looking at or challenged by adopting 2.4.