4 - 1 compression ratio is fine unless you are serving lots of rich
content, which generally will see no performance gain if not reduced
performance.
As pointed out this option is not a one size fits all arrangement.
Shouldn't the default be the best config for everyone based upon the
lowest
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Jeffrey E Burgoyne burgo...@keenuh.com wrote:
4 - 1 compression ratio is fine unless you are serving lots of rich
content, which generally will see no performance gain if not reduced
performance.
The rich content doesn't need to go through the deflate filter,
Brian,
Thanks for great analysis - it's quite useful to see CPU question put in
real life perspective.
I need to read up on downstream caches problem a bit more, but can you
explain how you worked around those problems in your practice?
Sergey
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Brian
Sander,
Sorry, missed your reply originally. I would assume that it is possible to
make configuration conditional and enable mod_gzip if zlib is available to
help distribution builders like Red Hat make this decision to include the
module?
BTW, it beats me why zlib is not in distros by default -
have now.
It's not 'broken'.
Why change it?
Kevin Kiley
[snip]
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Tue, Jun 1, 2010 7:40 am
Subject: Re: Fast by default
Geez, Eric. No wonder people don't want to contribute
Sorry for saying this again - regarding cache (expiration), I'm not talking
about blindly enabling expiration on content - I'm talking about enabling
the module so users CAN configure their sites.
Right now they don't have this option with majority of the hasting providers
simply because the
go anywhere near finding out what MIME types may or
may not be fully supported for decoding by these 'modern' browsers.
They ONLY test whether responses with 'Vary: Accept-Encoding' seem to
be CACHED locally by the browser(s).
The RESULTS, as they relate to this 'Fast by default' THREAD, don't
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Sergey Chernyshev
sergey.chernys...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for saying this again - regarding cache (expiration), I'm not talking
about blindly enabling expiration on content - I'm talking about enabling
the module so users CAN configure their sites.
Right now
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Sergey Chernyshev
sergey.chernys...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, missed your reply originally. I would assume that it is possible to
make configuration conditional and enable mod_gzip if zlib is available to
help distribution builders like Red Hat make this decision
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Eric Covener wrote:
mod_gzip is not part of the Apache HTTP Server source distribution --
it's third-party. I'm assuming you meant mod_deflate.
It should. It's great.
- --
Arturo Buanzo Busleiman
Independent Linux and Security Consultant -
On 6/2/2010 9:59 AM, Sergey Chernyshev wrote:
Right now they don't have this option with majority of
the h[o]sting providers simply because the module is not compiled.
That is a pretty sweeping generalization. There is no picture here of
which do and which do not, nor is there an
Yes, I meant mod_detlate, sorry.
I stand corrected. Will have to check the distros.
Why is it not enabled by default in the source distribution then if all the
packagers have it enabled.
Sergey
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2,
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Sergey Chernyshev
sergey.chernys...@gmail.com wrote:
Why is it not enabled by default in the source distribution then if all the
packagers have it enabled.
Assuming you mean compiled by default. When you build Apache and
don't ask for any specific modules, and
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Sergey Chernyshev
sergey.chernys...@gmail.com wrote:
Why is it not enabled by default in the source distribution then if all
the
packagers have it enabled.
Assuming you mean compiled by
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
On 6/2/2010 9:59 AM, Sergey Chernyshev wrote:
Right now they don't have this option with majority of
the h[o]sting providers simply because the module is not compiled.
That is a pretty sweeping generalization.
On 6/2/2010 2:06 PM, Sergey Chernyshev wrote:
I'm not a person to show you urgency here, but I have a feeling that 2.4
is 2-3 years away from production web sites (correct me if I'm wrong
here). And it might be too long to wait for these fundamental
performance optimizations.
I rather think
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:24 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
Legitimate hosting providers must do their research and understand the
product, it's not ment for such consumption out of the box.
I do not agree here - you're not asking hosting providers to do research on
every
Bryan McQuade wrote...
thanks! it is really great that you did this investigation.
You're welcome, but I wouldn't really call that an 'investigation'.
More like just a quick 'observation'.
RE: checking to see if in cache, try typing the URL into the nav bar
and hitting enter rather than
No, I'm not overthinking it - as Bryan mentioned before, hosting providers
are not configuring stuff and relying on httpd project to provide viable
defaults.
Some of them behave this way, but I haven't seen any indication that's
it's due to not being in some no-argument build. And if it was,
On Jun 2, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Sergey Chernyshev wrote:
No, I'm not overthinking it - as Bryan mentioned before, hosting providers
are not configuring stuff and relying on httpd project to provide viable
defaults.
Have you considered that the default settings are fine for the vast majority
On 6/1/2010 3:30 AM, Bryan McQuade wrote:
I had a conversation with a well known hosting provider recently and
they told me they use the default Apache configuration for their
shared hosting service. When I asked if they provide gzip as an option
for their users, they said no, since it was not
On 01.06.2010 07:19, Jerome Renard wrote:
In 2010, IMO there is no good reason to have gzip disabled by default.
Almost all websites enable it. There are a handful of prominent
websites that do not. I've had conversations with a few of these
sites. Most of them have not turned it on because they
On 01 Jun 2010, at 2:30 AM, Bryan McQuade wrote:
I had a conversation with a well known hosting provider recently and
they told me they use the default Apache configuration for their
shared hosting service. When I asked if they provide gzip as an option
for their users, they said no, since it
- Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
The very definition of tuned means tailored for your local setup.
It's actually quite hard to get this thought accross. I think we should
put it in a reboot of the performance ``optimization'' documentation.
The default httpd configuration
Typically, you
would want to front a mod_deflate with an HTTP cache, such as mod_cache (or
equivalent). Here mod_cache only makes sense if you have the disk space to
support it, and there is no real one-size-fits-all cache setup.
This said, our default config is 15 years old, and attempts to
Geez, Eric. No wonder people don't want to contribute to httpd, when they
run into an attitude like yours. That dismissiveness makes me embarressed
for our community.
There is zero reason for us to avoid putting deflate into the default
configuration.
It is also very arguable that we should
From: Greg SteinSent: Dienstag, 1. Juni 2010 14:40
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Fast by default
Geez, Eric. No wonder people don't want to contribute to httpd, when
they run into an attitude like
On 6/1/2010 7:05 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
Typically, you
would want to front a mod_deflate with an HTTP cache, such as mod_cache (or
equivalent). Here mod_cache only makes sense if you have the disk space to
support it, and there is no real one-size-fits-all cache setup.
This said, our
@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Tue, Jun 1, 2010 7:40 am
Subject: Re: Fast by default
Geez, Eric. No wonder people don't want to contribute to httpd, when they run
into an attitude like yours. That dismissiveness makes me embarressed for our
community.
There is zero reason for us to avoid putting deflate
-Original Message-
From: Sergey Chernyshev sergey.chernys...@gmail.com
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Tue, Jun 1, 2010 5:30 pm
Subject: Re: Fast by default
It's not 'broken'.
Why change it?
Please don't think that old configurations and practices are not broken - web
sites are loading too slow
@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Tue, Jun 1, 2010 7:40 am
Subject: Re: Fast by default
Geez, Eric. No wonder people don't want to contribute to httpd, when they
run into an attitude like yours. That dismissiveness makes me embarressed
for our community.
There is zero reason for us to avoid putting deflate
Let me preface ALL the remarks below with TWO statements...
1. I haven't done any research on these HTTP based Client/Server compression
topics in quite some time. It is all, essentially, 'ancient history' for me
but it still amazes me that some of the issues are, so many years later,
still
All,
I was once offered money to provide a high-performance Apache configuration
file for a website. When I pointed out that I would need to come in, analyze
their app and its performance, and then iteratively tune the config
accordingly, I was given to understand that this was not
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:04 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
[...]
Plus deflate may provide no benefit, and degrade performance, if the CPU
utilization is a greater concern than bandwidth utilization.
The CPU utilization is an interesting topic for me because I've been
working
Thanks to Covener for pointing out this thread to me.
My first thought when reading it wasn't exactly what I then found.
When thinking about ``fast by default'', I'm thinking about httpd making
smart decisions for MPM default values, based on the number of CPU cores
and the amount of memory
about Fast by default with Apache
instead of Install nginx or lighttpd or the only way is to use CDN
vendors like Akamai, the'll take care of it.
BTW, I always build Apaches from the source and before writing to the
list,
I downloaded the latest versions and checked - none of the three
In case of a regular internet provider or enterprise IT or Linux
distribution packager, I think this is very different and they have hard
time understanding this and I believe it's important for a team maintaining
most popular web server in the world to make such decisions for them as you
did
of accessing
a site with compressed content. I did not enjoy that.
Just my 2c.
Regards,
Jie
* Igor Gali?? i.ga...@brainsware.org wrote:
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 11:29:17 + (UTC)
From: Igor Gali?? i.ga...@brainsware.org
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Fast by default
X-Mailer: Zimbra
I had a conversation with a well known hosting provider recently and
they told me they use the default Apache configuration for their
shared hosting service. When I asked if they provide gzip as an option
for their users, they said no, since it was not enabled by default.
When I explained to them
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Bryan McQuade bmcqu...@google.com wrote:
I propose providing an additional httpd.conf in the svn trunk and as
part of future Apache releases that enables modules and directives
that are commonly recommended on Apache performance tuning websites.
This includes
Hi Bryan,
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Bryan McQuade bmcqu...@google.com wrote:
I had a conversation with a well known hosting provider recently and
they told me they use the default Apache configuration for their
shared hosting service. When I asked if they provide gzip as an option
for
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Sergey Chernyshev
sergey.chernys...@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't you agree that deflate has all reasons to be on a default
configuration?
Again, I don't agree. I think it should be configured.
I checked and it seems that http://httpd.apache.org/ is using gzip
-- Forwarded message --
From: Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 07:31:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Fast by default
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Sergey Chernyshev
sergey.chernys...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think anything
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Sergey Chernyshev
sergey.chernys...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm working on helping people to have their sites fast by default and was
wondering if Apache HTTPD team can consider enabling a few modules by
default and maybe adding a few directive to default
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Sergey Chernyshev
sergey.chernys...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm working on helping people to have their sites fast by default and was
wondering if Apache HTTPD team can consider enabling
On 28.05.2010 13:31, Eric Covener wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Sergey Chernyshev
sergey.chernys...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm working on helping people to have their sites fast by default and was
wondering if Apache HTTPD team can consider enabling a few modules by
default and maybe
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
Not that expires and deflate are
loaded in the default conf if you build them, although not necessarily
when third parties distribute a default configuration.
Important typo: Not that - Note that.
whoops, thanks for
Hi,
I'm working on helping people to have their sites fast by default and was
wondering if Apache HTTPD team can consider enabling a few modules by
default and maybe adding a few directive to default httpd.conf file that
comes with distribution?
I did have some preliminary look at this problem
48 matches
Mail list logo
