RE: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
Oh yes - forgot about v6... that's a must have for Apache. Is it available for 1.x? If not that would be the first feature to add. Peter -Original Message- From: Andre Schild [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3 People will move Apache 1.x to this platform because there is virtually NO migration cost (i.e. recoding modules etc) and they get a performance boost and while replacing an aging infrastructure. 12 million user on the move - make it easy for them, buy a cheap AMD Opteron and optimize and improve Apache 1.4 on that box. Today perhaps, but tomorrow with IPv6 ? André aarboard ag internet - networks - screenprint design - multimedia Egliweg 10 - Postfach 214 - CH-2560 Nidau (Switzerland) Phone +41 32 332 9714 - Fax +41 32 332 9715 www.aarboard.ch - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:01:46AM -0700, Peter J. Cranstone wrote: Oh yes - forgot about v6... that's a must have for Apache. Is it available for 1.x? If not that would be the first feature to add. The KAME project has IPv6 patches for 1.3.* at ftp://ftp.kame.net/pub/kame/misc/ they work on KAME (ie *BSD) stacks but have issues on platforms without INET6_V6ONLY support (but just about work). linux.or.jp used to maintain an alternative patch with v6 support, but that's since gone. The patches are all truly horrendous. APR has a much better model for all of this. -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:01:46AM -0700, Peter J. Cranstone wrote: Oh yes - forgot about v6... that's a must have for Apache. Is it available for 1.x? If not that would be the first feature to add. The KAME project has IPv6 patches for 1.3.* at ftp://ftp.kame.net/pub/kame/misc/ they work on KAME (ie *BSD) stacks but have issues on platforms without INET6_V6ONLY support (but just about work). linux.or.jp used to maintain an alternative patch with v6 support, but that's since gone. The patches are all truly horrendous. APR has a much better model for all of this. Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit support) with all the Windows specific code stripped out and source compatability (to the extent possible) with Apache 1.3 modules would probably see rapid uptake. I can't say that thrills me but it's probably true... Bill
Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Bill Stoddard wrote: Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit support) with all the Windows specific code stripped out and source compatability (to the extent possible) with Apache 1.3 modules would probably see rapid uptake. I can't say that thrills me but it's probably true... Not sure why providing useful software wouldn't thrill you. I think the point here is that someone is eventually going to do this. Would be nicer to have it under our control than have it leave the ASF. -Rasmus
Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:31:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote: Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit support) with all the Windows specific code stripped out and source compatability (to the extent possible) with Apache 1.3 modules would probably see rapid uptake. I can't say that thrills me but it's probably true... +1 How can I help? Break it into bite-sited tasks and I'll do some munching. Thanks! Glenn
Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
Glenn wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:31:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote: Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit support) with all the Windows specific code stripped out and source compatability (to the extent possible) with Apache 1.3 modules would probably see rapid uptake. I can't say that thrills me but it's probably true... +1 Again, unless there is 100% binary compatibility, which I do NOT see with 1.4, then *what* is the driver for 1.4 over 2.x?? -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson
Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
On Nov 17, 2003, at 1:31 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote: Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:01:46AM -0700, Peter J. Cranstone wrote: Oh yes - forgot about v6... that's a must have for Apache. Is it available for 1.x? If not that would be the first feature to add. The KAME project has IPv6 patches for 1.3.* at ftp://ftp.kame.net/pub/kame/misc/ they work on KAME (ie *BSD) stacks but have issues on platforms without INET6_V6ONLY support (but just about work). linux.or.jp used to maintain an alternative patch with v6 support, but that's since gone. The patches are all truly horrendous. APR has a much better model for all of this. Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit support) with all the Windows specific code stripped out and source compatability (to the extent possible) with Apache 1.3 modules would probably see rapid uptake. I can't say that thrills me but it's probably true... Once we break binary compatibility, and with the above definition of 1.4 I think that's a certainty, then I don't see the big reason for a 1.4 over 2.0. There's a big diff, IMO, between opening up development on 1.3 and trying to make 1.3 a 2.0-lite.
Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote: Glenn wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:31:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote: Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit support) with all the Windows specific code stripped out and source compatability (to the extent possible) with Apache 1.3 modules would probably see rapid uptake. I can't say that thrills me but it's probably true... +1 Again, unless there is 100% binary compatibility, which I do NOT see with 1.4, then *what* is the driver for 1.4 over 2.x?? Why binary compatibility? Recompiling a module is a hell of a lot easier than rewriting it. -Rasmus
Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Bill Stoddard wrote: Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit support) with all the Windows specific code stripped out and source compatability (to the extent possible) with Apache 1.3 modules would probably see rapid uptake. I can't say that thrills me but it's probably true... Not sure why providing useful software wouldn't thrill you. Don't read too much into that comment. 1.3 is just so damn crufty in many respects as compared to 2.0 that it offends my senses. But 1.3 has some significant strengths in its favor. 2.0.recent is pretty darn stable (at least with the threaded MPM) and is backward compatable with binaries compiled with releases as early as 2.0.42. But the filter API in 2.0 is just horribly complex (IMHO) and takes a -lot- of effort to master. Speculation. In this economic environment (and perhaps this will turn out to be generally true from now on), companies are not making investments in IT unless they can get a proven and almost immediate return on that investment. Making the jump to Apache 2.0 -can- be a big investment (depending on how many custom/third party modules you use) and that investment will not be made unless 2.0 enables some fundamental new business processes not possible with 1.3. I would venture that most of those kinds of investments are being made in Java, .Net or PHP application environments. Being able to eliminate 1 machine in 3 due to scalability improvements in 2.0 probably won't be a sufficient return on investment for most folks. A really kick-ass load balancing/active fail-over feature in mod_proxy might generate some interest in 2.0 deployed in the DMZ (features like this are significantly easier to implement in threaded webservers). I think the point here is that someone is eventually going to do this. Would be nicer to have it under our control than have it leave the ASF. You probably have a much better read on this than most of the folks here. I'd like to believe that ipv6, threading and 64 bit support is the catalyst that will get many folks over to 2.0. Dunno tho... -Rasmus Bill
Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
On Nov 17, 2003, at 2:22 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote: In this economic environment (and perhaps this will turn out to be generally true from now on), companies are not making investments in IT unless they can get a proven and almost immediate return on that investment. Making the jump to Apache 2.0 -can- be a big investment (depending on how many custom/third party modules you use) Most people with those big investments are using at least *some* 3rd party modules. Having a 1.4 that is not binary compatible with 1.3 means that those 3rd party modules will need to be (at least) re-compiled for 1.4. So they will need to worry about 1.3, 1.4 and 2.0 (and potentially 2.2)... That's an *awful* lot to have people keep track of. I don't see companies out there wanting to do that... they will maintain their 1.3 modules for awhile, and their 2.x ones, because it *is* the next gen, but I think they would avoid 1.4 almost totally. Having 1.4 not be binary compatible with 1.3 severely limits its usefulness to those exact people that it's supposed to be helping.
Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Nov 17, 2003, at 2:22 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote: In this economic environment (and perhaps this will turn out to be generally true from now on), companies are not making investments in IT unless they can get a proven and almost immediate return on that investment. Making the jump to Apache 2.0 -can- be a big investment (depending on how many custom/third party modules you use) Most people with those big investments are using at least *some* 3rd party modules. Having a 1.4 that is not binary compatible with 1.3 means that those 3rd party modules will need to be (at least) re-compiled for 1.4. So they will need to worry about 1.3, 1.4 and 2.0 (and potentially 2.2)... That's an *awful* lot to have people keep track of. I don't see companies out there wanting to do that... they will maintain their 1.3 modules for awhile, and their 2.x ones, because it *is* the next gen, but I think they would avoid 1.4 almost totally. Having 1.4 not be binary compatible with 1.3 severely limits its usefulness to those exact people that it's supposed to be helping. As someone working in a company like that, I can tell you definitively that this is not true. At least not here at the biggest web company in the world. -Rasmus
Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
* Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As someone working in a company like that, I can tell you definitively that this is not true. At least not here at the biggest web company in the world. *shrug* Big or not, if it's the only one, it can develop the stuff it needs itself. I personally don't see the need to do the dirty work for the biggest web company in the world. nd
Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
On Nov 17, 2003, at 3:17 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: As someone working in a company like that, I can tell you definitively that this is not true. At least not here at the biggest web company in the world. -Rasmus Well, I can certainly say that with respect to many, many of the clients I've worked with, it most certainly *is* the case. Not having a WebLogic or WebSphere DSO, for example, puts 'em in a world of hurt. Big time. Look at the impact of not having 2.0 modules severely limited the acceptance of 2.0. Not having 1.4 modules will most certainly do the same*. If 1.4 == 1.3, binary-wise, then it's a non-issue; if not, it's a *major* issue. * Yes, part of the delay was due to porting, which may not be one with 1.4. But we are *still* talking about distribution, support, etc.. of a load of modules.
Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
Jim Jagielski wrote: Look at the impact of not having 2.0 modules severely limited the acceptance of 2.0. Not having 1.4 modules will most certainly do the same*. If 1.4 == 1.3, binary-wise, then it's a non-issue; if not, it's a *major* issue. * Yes, part of the delay was due to porting, which may not be one with 1.4. But we are *still* talking about distribution, support, etc.. of a load of modules. In my experience, there are a lot of people out there who are running older versions of application servers, and upgrading to Apache v2.0 would also mean upgrading to a newer application server release that supports Apache v2.0. The questions asked were invariably our app server (and associated dependancy on v1.3) works now, so why upgrade?. Regards, Graham --
RE: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
then *what* is the driver for 1.4 over 2.x?? Right now I think it's unknown - but with some reasoned debate I think a path will emerge. One other thought - Apache needs an enemy - and I mean this in the nicest possible terms. Having been on the receiving end of the forums venom before I know how everybody responds to a threat. With 66% market share and IIS the only real threat, why does everyone come to work in the morning. Larry Ellison said it best in Softwars - we pick our enemies very carefully. I think this is an important point because it gives you focus and reason for being. 2.x is adrift because there is no threat to it apart from apathy - so what do you do to get the focus back on Apache? Personally I think the driver for 1.4 over 2.x is 64-bit because that's what people are going to be buying next. 64-bit offers you three things: 1. Performance 1-4 IPC (instructions per cycle 2. Memory 4GB RAM 3. Security Sun, AMD, PowerPC all offer 1 2, Itanium offers you 6-8 IPC and some very sophisticated security capabilities not found in any other chip architecture. The downside of Itanium is it's perception in the market place. Intel has done a terrible job of marketing it - however they do have to protect the Pentium cash cow. This will all change sometime next year with the btrans software which will give you Xeon performance for x86 programs running under the EPIC architecture. Regards, Peter -Original Message- From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 12:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3 Glenn wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:31:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote: Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit support) with all the Windows specific code stripped out and source compatability (to the extent possible) with Apache 1.3 modules would probably see rapid uptake. I can't say that thrills me but it's probably true... +1 Again, unless there is 100% binary compatibility, which I do NOT see with 1.4, then *what* is the driver for 1.4 over 2.x?? -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson
