Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
Tomas Bodzar wrote: Are you able to read? At least this http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq1.html#Included and snippet from it : # Our improved and secured version of the Apache 1.3 web server. The OpenBSD team has added default chrooting, privilege revocation, and other security-related improvements. Also includes mod_ssl and DSO support. These all great additions. I just wish Subversion would someday be compatible with those. so version number doesn't mean that it's 6 years old or that it's crappy. On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Dexter Tomisson dexterto...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old. Almost an abandonware. Is it that impossible to see OpenBSD coming with (chroot'ed) Apache 2.2.x by the default? That would be great! The license problem would be solved by discussing it with the Apache community, imho. http://old.nabble.com/OpenBSD---the-Apache-license-problem.-Why--td28387885.html Thanks
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 10:22:20AM +0300, Pekka Niiranen wrote: These all great additions. I just wish Subversion would someday be compatible with those. Subversion is awful. Try git, it supports http without having to install fancy apache modules.
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
On 3 May 2010 03:31, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO vt...@c3sl.ufpr.br wrote: I will print this mail and laugh everyday with it. :) This is especially for you, Victor. Print that too please, and laugh everyday :): ab -n 1 -c 10 127.0.0.1/1.tar.gz Apache 1.3.29 Requests per second:149.23 [#/sec] (mean) Apache 2.2.2 Requests per second:375.02 [#/sec] (mean)
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
Hups # apache2 -v Server version: Apache/2.2.8 (Ubuntu) Server built: Mar 9 2010 20:45:36 Requests per second:125.07 [#/sec] (mean) # apache2 -v Server version: Apache/2.2.11 (Ubuntu) Server built: Nov 13 2009 22:06:57 Requests per second:10108.85 [#/sec] (mean) Are you using your servers in production or your benchmarking tools? On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Dexter Tomisson dexterto...@gmail.com wrote: On 3 May 2010 03:31, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO vt...@c3sl.ufpr.br wrote: I will print this mail and laugh everyday with it. :) This is especially for you, Victor. Print that too please, and laugh everyday :): ab -n 1 -c 10 127.0.0.1/1.tar.gz Apache 1.3.29 Requests per second: B B 149.23 [#/sec] (mean) Apache 2.2.2 Requests per second: B B 375.02 [#/sec] (mean) -- http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
On Mon, 3 May 2010, Dexter Tomisson wrote: ab -n 1 -c 10 127.0.0.1/1.tar.gz Apache 1.3.29 Requests per second:149.23 [#/sec] (mean) Apache 2.2.2 Requests per second:375.02 [#/sec] (mean) Apache2 is significantly more complex: ktrace -f /tmp/a2-ktrace.log -di /usr/local/sbin/httpd2 ktrace -f /tmp/a1-ktrace.log -di /usr/sbin/httpd -rw--- 1 root wheel 637834 May 3 10:58 /tmp/a1-ktrace.log -rw--- 1 root wheel 2316108 May 3 10:56 /tmp/a2-ktrace.log ktrace -f /tmp/a2-ktrace.log -dit c /usr/local/sbin/httpd2 ktrace -f /tmp/a1-ktrace.log -dit c /usr/sbin/httpd -rw--- 1 root wheel 354900 May 3 11:09 /tmp/a1-ktrace.log -rw--- 1 root wheel 1517512 May 3 11:09 /tmp/a2-ktrace.log
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
On Mon, 3 May 2010 10:10:01 +0300 Dexter Tomisson dexterto...@gmail.com wrote: This is especially for you, Victor. Print that too please, and laugh everyday :): ab -n 1 -c 10 127.0.0.1/1.tar.gz Apache 1.3.29 Requests per second:149.23 [#/sec] (mean) Apache 2.2.2 Requests per second:375.02 [#/sec] (mean) And while you're at it, please add nginx to the mix :) -- Jure PeD ar http://jure.pecar.org
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
Just for update. OpenSolaris in VM Server Software:Apache/2.2.14 Requests per second:396.00 [#/sec] (mean) Server Software:Apache/1.3.41 Requests per second:1284.49 [#/sec] (mean) Comparing it with previous results from Ubuntu and your results it seems to be very useful in comparisons ;-) On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Dexter Tomisson dexterto...@gmail.com wrote: On 3 May 2010 03:31, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO vt...@c3sl.ufpr.br wrote: I will print this mail and laugh everyday with it. :) This is especially for you, Victor. Print that too please, and laugh everyday :): ab -n 1 -c 10 127.0.0.1/1.tar.gz Apache 1.3.29 Requests per second: B B 149.23 [#/sec] (mean) Apache 2.2.2 Requests per second: B B 375.02 [#/sec] (mean) -- http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
person who doesn't check the archives why doesn't openbsd do X? person who does check the archives the license is not acceptable | benchmarking tools don't tell the full story | you do not understand the security implications of what you suggest in your case it's all 3 of the above. get a clue and do your homework before you post stupid stuff.
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
On 2010-05-03, Dexter Tomisson dexterto...@gmail.com wrote: On 3 May 2010 03:31, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO vt...@c3sl.ufpr.br wrote: I will print this mail and laugh everyday with it. :) This is especially for you, Victor. Print that too please, and laugh everyday :): ab -n 1 -c 10 127.0.0.1/1.tar.gz Apache 1.3.29 Requests per second:149.23 [#/sec] (mean) Apache 2.2.2 Requests per second:375.02 [#/sec] (mean) so? base httpd isn't about performance, it's about providing something that works well enough, gives people a reasonable set of features, and under an acceptable license. lighttpd 1.4.26 Document Length:5600 bytes Concurrency Level: 10 Time taken for tests: 2.751 seconds Complete requests: 1 Failed requests:0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 5852 bytes HTML transferred: 5600 bytes Requests per second:3634.91 [#/sec] (mean) ...but then, lighty doesn't do things many people have come to expect from a general-purpose webserver...
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
With apache 1.3 being simpler I would imagine it has more scope for speed than apache 2. Which is faster, would be interesting but testing has to be thought out well, depending on what you are hoping to prove. ab can be used for some comparison tests but wouldn't reflect performance for live traffic which would have to be replayed or cleverly produced for each server and any tests would be affected by many factors which you would need to control and monitor, without those monitors affecting the system. Even if apache 2.2 was twice as fast, you are going to need multiple connections and servers for high loads and redundancy at some point. So speed helps reduce costs but I'd much rather have two more secure apaches than one less secure one handling the same amount of traffic. After all, insurance for payment gateways is tied to security breaches (often client side), it would be nice if people using OpenBSD got a discount, rather than being less! likely to be penalised :-) It would be fairer if people using OpenBSD on their desktops could get lower interest loans too or if microsoft had to compensate the banks and the world for insecurity and crafty/stupid instability. OpenBSD does more when running each process for security reasons and so is arguably slower than Linux, but also does less by default and so is faster than most distros. It's still blisteringly fast, especially where it counts and if I had to choose one OS to use it would be OpenBSD.
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
OpenBSD does more when running each process for security reasons and so is arguably slower than Linux, but also does less by default and so is faster than most distros. It's still blisteringly fast, especially where it counts and if I had to choose one OS to use it would be OpenBSD. I informally compared Slackware with OpenBSD. Slackware boots faster, but OpenBSD uses only 6mb of memory, while Slackware consumes something around 50mb. (Right after the boot, without X, default setup)
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
On 05/02/10 20:31, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old. Almost an abandonware. I will print this mail and laugh everyday with it. :) Ya, me too. It'll sit beside your laughable emails where you argued that the GPL is more free than the BSD/ISC license. That whole 'definition of freedom' thing is still hilarious! -- - RSM www.erratic.ca
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
wow what a useful comparison. On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 10:04:45PM -0300, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: OpenBSD does more when running each process for security reasons and so is arguably slower than Linux, but also does less by default and so is faster than most distros. It's still blisteringly fast, especially where it counts and if I had to choose one OS to use it would be OpenBSD. I informally compared Slackware with OpenBSD. Slackware boots faster, but OpenBSD uses only 6mb of memory, while Slackware consumes something around 50mb. (Right after the boot, without X, default setup)
low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
Hi. OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old. Almost an abandonware. Is it that impossible to see OpenBSD coming with (chroot'ed) Apache 2.2.x by the default? That would be great! The license problem would be solved by discussing it with the Apache community, imho. http://old.nabble.com/OpenBSD---the-Apache-license-problem.-Why--td28387885.html Thanks
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Dexter Tomisson dexterto...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old. No, it's not. Stop spreading lies. -- chs
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 06:31:22PM +0300, Dexter Tomisson wrote: Hi. OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old. Almost an abandonware. Is it that impossible to see OpenBSD coming with (chroot'ed) Apache 2.2.x by the default? No, and by reading your email you know this and still whine about it. That would be great! pkg_add apache wow I am tired, someone feed me some grapes. The license problem would be solved by discussing it with the Apache community, imho. Go ahead, tell them to make it ISC, BSD or MIT licensed. Good luck with that and report back when it is all done. http://old.nabble.com/OpenBSD---the-Apache-license-problem.-Why--td28387885.html Thanks
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
On May 02 18:31:22, Dexter Tomisson wrote: Hi. OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old. Almost an abandonware. Is it that impossible to see OpenBSD coming with (chroot'ed) Apache 2.2.x by the default? That would be great! The license problem would be solved by discussing it with the Apache community, imho. Police? I just got trolled.
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old. Almost an abandonware. I will print this mail and laugh everyday with it. :)
Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs
Are you able to read? At least this http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq1.html#Included and snippet from it : # Our improved and secured version of the Apache 1.3 web server. The OpenBSD team has added default chrooting, privilege revocation, and other security-related improvements. Also includes mod_ssl and DSO support. so version number doesn't mean that it's 6 years old or that it's crappy. On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Dexter Tomisson dexterto...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old. Almost an abandonware. Is it that impossible to see OpenBSD coming with (chroot'ed) Apache 2.2.x by the default? That would be great! The license problem would be solved by discussing it with the Apache community, imho. http://old.nabble.com/OpenBSD---the-Apache-license-problem.-Why--td28387885.html Thanks -- http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html
