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
> 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,
> 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 t
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:24 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> 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 aspect of HTTP.
W
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 t
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> 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
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Sergey Chernyshev
> 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".
Yes I meant compiled
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Sergey Chernyshev
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 don't ask for "most" or
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 wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:35 AM,
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 understan
-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 - O
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Sergey Chernyshev
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 to include the
> module?
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Sergey Chernyshev
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 they don't have this opti
I think you're exactly right about Refresh button - it actually behaves
differently in different browsers.
In my opinion we should change the test with initiation by click instead as
majority of the use-cases are about caching assets between pages when user
goes from page to page.
I wonder if we
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 modul
has to be 'Which MIME types?' text/plain and/or
> >> text/html only? SOME browsers can 'Accept-Encoding' on the
> ever-increasing
> >> .js Javascript backloads but some CANNOT.
> >>
> >> These 2 issues alone are probably enough to justify keep
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 -
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
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Jeffrey E Burgoyne 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,
though, so you need
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 commo
Well, FWIW, I got curious about what the state of affairs is TODAY
with this 'Vary: Accept-Encoding' deal and whether or not certain
'modern' browsers will or won't actually CACHE the responses... so I took
a few minutes and just did some simple tests with what I had available
here in front of me
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:04 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. 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 on a related type
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 necessary.
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 bei
Encoding' on the ever-increasing
>> .js Javascript backloads but some CANNOT.
>>
>> These 2 issues alone are probably enough to justify keeping compression
>> OFF by default. A lot of people that use Apache won't even be able to get
>> their heads around
be
sufficient.
>
> These 2 issues alone are probably enough to justify keeping compression
> OFF by default. A lot of people that use Apache won't even be able to get
> their heads around either one of these 'issues' and they really SHOULD
> do a little homework befo
x27;ship' with.
Kevin Kiley
-Original Message-
From: Sergey Chernyshev
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
y Patrick
Meanan of WebPageTest.org's one year history:
http://blog.patrickmeenan.com/2010/05/are-pages-getting-faster.html
Sergey
>
> Kevin Kiley
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Stein
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Se
ally SHOULD
> do a little homework before turning it ON.
>
> Someone already quoted that...
>
> 'people expect the default config to just WORK without major issues'.
>
> That's exactly what you have now.
> It's not 'broken'.
> Why change it?
the default config to just WORK without major issues'.
That's exactly what you have now.
It's not 'broken'.
Why change it?
Kevin Kiley
[snip]
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Tue, Jun 1, 2010 7:40 am
Subject: Re: Fast by default
Gee
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,
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> 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.
Congeniality lesson noted, but not in the way you probably intended.
> Th
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:38 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> 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 pro
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
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 leave
> 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 attempt
- "Graham Leggett" 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 works reasona
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 wa
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 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 en
Hi Bryan,
On Tue, Jun 1, 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
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Bryan McQuade 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 mod_deflate, mod_
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 t
accessing
a site with compressed content. I did not enjoy that.
Just my 2c.
Regards,
Jie
* Igor Gali?? wrote:
> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 11:29:17 + (UTC)
> From: Igor Gali??
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Fast by default
> X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.5_GA_2213.DEBIAN5_64 (
> 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
>
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Sergey Chernyshev
> 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.
>
There are two parts to the pr
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 avai
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Sergey Chernyshev
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
> compression - why you thin
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Eric Covener
> 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
> wrote:
>
>
> I don't think
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Rainer Jung 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 catching th
On 28.05.2010 13:31, Eric Covener wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Sergey Chernyshev
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 de
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Evans [mailto:tevans...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 28. Mai 2010 13:57
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Fast by default
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Eric Covener
> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 28, 2010
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Sergey Chernyshev
> 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 ad
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Sergey Chernyshev
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 httpd.conf file that
> comes wi
54 matches
Mail list logo
