On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:33:54 +0200, Bostjan Skufca @ domenca.com
> We use php4 and php5 with apache2 on production servers without any problem
> (prefork MPM).
I also have PHP 5 and Apache 2 running on some servers, as I need some
Apache Modules that are only available for Apache 2 ... Also, I r
We use php4 and php5 with apache2 on production servers without any problem
(prefork MPM).
worker MPM could be a problem though...
regrds,
Bostjan
On Thursday 23 of September 2004 10:28, Frédéric Hardy wrote:
> Hello -
>
> I known that using apache 2 with php 4.x is not a good idea, because
>
Hello,
And following the last line - I'm still running Apache2 with PHP5 on
Windows on an increasing number of sites, without a single problem to
date ;)
I switched to Apache 2 and PHP 5.0.0 a week ago and hand no problems so
far (several hundred thousand hits each day). Apache 2 is running in
Would it be just fine if I activated Apache2's 'prefork' module? I know
preforking defeats Apache2 purpose, but I am still wondering if it should
still work fine. :)
"Lester Caine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Oliver John V. Tibi wrote:
>
> > Wow! And come to think
Why is there such a reluctance to using Apache 2? For stability issues,
PHP should recommend Apache 2 but in prefork mode. Instead of saying
Apache 2 is unsupported, just say non prefork mode is not supported.
Additionally, if PHP is more acceptable of Apache 2 (in the supported
mode), then use
Curt Zirzow wrote:
Don't know about benchmarks don't bother with them, but we were using
PHP and apache 2 on a production server and it just had too many problems.
And for a longer explaination:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=108736540021355&w=2
It was this or another message b
Oliver John V. Tibi wrote:
Wow! And come to think of it, how did you do it? Or should I stick with
Apache1 until there is a viable solution to this upgrade dilemma?
When I started playing with this, I had a windows machine onto which I
tried installing Apache1. After a couple of days of frustratio
* Thus wrote Oliver John V. Tibi:
> Wow! And come to think of it, how did you do it? Or should I stick with
> Apache1 until there is a viable solution to this upgrade dilemma?
I would stay with stick with apache 1.x.
The only reason I would consider apache2 is if there was a module
only available
Wow! And come to think of it, how did you do it? Or should I stick with
Apache1 until there is a viable solution to this upgrade dilemma?
--
Running 'ojtibi' on '127.0.0.1' (BATCH_OPTIMISTIC mode).
"Live free() or die()."
"Lester Caine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED
> On Tuesday 20 July 2004 03:22, Marten Lehmann wrote:
>
>> Why shouldn't I use PHP 5.0.0 with Apache 2.0.50?
>
> You can, if it works for you, but ...
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-general&m=107916708217647&w=2
>
> --
> Jason Wong -> Gremlins Associates -> www.gremlins.biz
Apache2 had
On Tuesday 20 July 2004 03:22, Marten Lehmann wrote:
> Why shouldn't I use PHP 5.0.0 with Apache 2.0.50?
You can, if it works for you, but ...
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-general&m=107916708217647&w=2
--
Jason Wong -> Gremlins Associates -> www.gremlins.biz
Open Source Software Syste
Hi,
I just wanted to post almost the same question: PHP for Apache 2 is
idling around for years now. configure --with-apxs2 is still marked as
[EXPERIMENTAL] and the documentation still warns:
"Do not use Apache 2.0 and PHP in a production environment neither on
Unix nor on Windows."
What is t
Chris Hayes wrote:
And for a longer explaination:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=108736540021355&w=2
Very well explained. Untill now this problem was explained to me with a
lot of techno mumbo jumbo, and I could not make sense of it. But now I
think I really understand what's going o
At 18:55 19-7-04, you wrote:
> >I was wondering if there are already results from any benchmark that says
> >Apache 2 and PHP are ready for production environments.
> >
> >
> Don't know about benchmarks don't bother with them, but we were using
> PHP and apache 2 on a production server and it just
* Thus wrote raditha dissanayake:
> Oliver John V. Tibi wrote:
>
> >Hi!
> >
> >I was wondering if there are already results from any benchmark that says
> >Apache 2 and PHP are ready for production environments.
> >
> >
> Don't know about benchmarks don't bother with them, but we were using
> PH
Oliver John V. Tibi wrote:
Hi!
I was wondering if there are already results from any benchmark that says
Apache 2 and PHP are ready for production environments.
Don't know about benchmarks don't bother with them, but we were using
PHP and apache 2 on a production server and it just had too many
In short - looks as if your version of Apache 2 is out of date.
You're using a version from 28th June, the PHP dll was built against a
version from 3rd September.
Danny.
- Original Message -
From: "Horst Gassner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 20
Hi,
I use Apache 2.0.4 and PHP 4.2.3 on Mandrake Linux and Win XP. On Linux its
been extremely stable and havnt had a single problem yet, on XP I have a few
minor problems to where the PHP was executing slow but nothing majorly
noticable.
"Davy Obdam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0
Thanks for your reply, Davy. We are running *nix boxes, so I don't have any
thoughts on XP and Apache.
Kirk
> -Original Message-
> From: Davy Obdam [mailto:info@;davyobdam.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:29 PM
> To: Johnson, Kirk; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subje
Hi Kirk,.
I run apache 2.0.40 and PHP 4.2.3 without no problem on my windows XP
machine. I use it for testing, but i would think its stable enough for a
production environment aswell. I actualy think that on a win32 platform
Apache 2 is a better choice instead of 1.3.x. Whats your opinion about
th
I heard mentioning a few more month for them to get working stably.
--
Maxim Maletsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Johnson, Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote... :
> Last I heard, PHP and Apache 2 were not yet ready for production
> environments. Are there any further updates?
>
> What is the best way t
21 matches
Mail list logo
