Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Has Apache peaked? (ZDNet)
ZDNet
looks at reasons for the slow adoption of the Apache 2 web server.
"Unfortunately, the changes in 2.0 necessary to implement the performance improvements were significant, and they break all of Apache's old module code. It all needs to be rewritten and--amazingly--six months after the release of 2.0, much of the job remains undone."
(Log in to post comments)
Developer documentation! Posted Oct 3, 2002 22:19 UTC (Thu) by nas (subscriber, #17) [Link] My Apache module has not been ported to version 2 because the documentation for the version 2 API is poor. I started trying to do the port but gave up after having to read the source in order to figure out how the API works.If the Apache developers want people to port modules to verson 2 then they need to spend some more time on documentation. It's not an exciting job but it needs to be done. I'll probably eventually port my module to 2 but it's going to take time.
Has Apache peaked? (ZDNet) Posted Oct 3, 2002 22:41 UTC (Thu) by borthner (guest, #4277) [Link] PHP still isn't ready for Apache 2, largely because of concerns over making PHP modules thread safe. Until PHP is ready to go, my sites won't be switching over, and I expect the same holds true for many other sites running Apache.
Has Apache peaked? (ZDNet) Posted Oct 4, 2002 2:56 UTC (Fri) by freelsjd (guest, #250) [Link] because it is not available as a debian package yet; not even for unstable. who is going to package it for debian ? why doesn't the apache project make it available for debian ? if they want people to use it, make it available !
Has Apache peaked? (ZDNet) Posted Oct 4, 2002 5:16 UTC (Fri) by lordsutch (subscriber, #53) [Link] Uh, yes it is packaged for unstable; "apache2" is a virtual package provided by one of four actual packages that implement the threading models. (IIRC "perchild" is currently borked, though.)
Has Apache peaked? (ZDNet) Posted Oct 4, 2002 3:41 UTC (Fri) by lilo (guest, #661) [Link] Apache 2.0 is simply not ready for majority adoption by existing Apache sites. When it's ready, people will adopt it. And I'm sure that, if Apache 1.3 can hold the market share it holds, 2.0's performance and other improvements will help it continue to accumulate market share for some time to come. If Apache was a commercial project per se, this might be a scandal. Certainly its commercial competitors are likely to make as much as they can of the slowness of adoption. But Apache 2 development will go on regardless, and the participants will continue to evidence the same concern for quality the Apache project has demonstrated since its inception. When it's truly ready, what's not to adopt?
Has Apache peaked? (ZDNet) Posted Oct 4, 2002 6:29 UTC (Fri) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link] If your current setup (with Apache 1.3x) works perfectly, why risk any problems by upgrading?
Has Apache peaked? (ZDNet) Posted Oct 4, 2002 14:46 UTC (Fri) by Psychopath (guest, #4501) [Link] SpeedFeatures (filters e.g.) SSL included by default (i.e. no hassles compiling it separately etc) ..but I stay with 1.3 too...
Has Apache peaked? (ZDNet) Posted Oct 4, 2002 16:52 UTC (Fri) by torsten (guest, #4137) [Link] I don't think you read his post.He said " If your current setup (with Apache 1.3x) works perfectly...?" If the computer can handle the loads, the http server works, everything works, do the features in Apache 2.0 compel one to upgrade? While you mentioned several benefits of 2.0, it simply does not make sense to upgrade if these features/benefits are not going to be used. Does it? For example, my laptop is 600Mhz. I can decode full-screen divx to watch movies on the road (i.e. my system meets specification). I can naturally run every application I need (OpenOffice, Sylpheed, Gkrellm, WindowMaker, Skipstone, ...). Should I now upgrade to 1Ghz? While it is nice to have a faster machine, there is no impetus to upgrade if my current system meets (or even exceeds) all my needs. I really dislike the thought rut people have fallen in, with the Microsoft version upgrade treadmill. Microsoft tends to roll needed bugfixes and security updates into version upgrades. Version upgrades are only necessary if the new version meets some specification that the current system fails. Incremental upgrades are simply for maintenance (bugfixes, security updates), and all systems need maintenance. Torsten
Has Apache peaked? (ZDNet) Posted Oct 7, 2002 12:55 UTC (Mon) by bockman (guest, #3650) [Link] I perfectly agree with you on the general idea (_my_ laptop is still a 150 MHz one ).<p>However, the question is: will apache developers support both 1.3 and 2.0, mainly in terms of security patches? If so, for how long? The answer to this question will determine how much we have to hurry in adopting the 2.0.
No mod_perl, mo_php! Posted Oct 4, 2002 7:51 UTC (Fri) by Dom2 (guest, #458) [Link] For most people they'll stay where they can run mod_perl and mod_php versions. Whilst there is something available for apache2 on both fronts, it's just not as stabel and well supported as the older versions.-Dom
Has Apache peaked? (ZDNet) Posted Oct 9, 2002 2:24 UTC (Wed) by qryss (guest, #6198) [Link] Granted an upgrade from 1.3 is of uncertain value but what about a new installation?I need to deploy a proxy server for my company. Do people think I should use 1.3 or 2.0? TIA, qryss
Has Apache peaked? (ZDNet) Posted Oct 10, 2002 3:37 UTC (Thu) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] I would probably recommend using a proxy server like Squid as a proxy server, actually :)
comments from an actual module writer Posted Oct 10, 2002 10:51 UTC (Thu) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link] I've written an Apache module which is actually fairly popular, and I have ported the module to Apache 2, so maybe I can say a few things about the real situation.I totally agree that Apache 1.3 is enough for the vast majority of sites and these sites have little reason to upgrade to Apache 2. It was even said by many of the core Apache developers back at the start of Apache 2 that the older 1.3 version would always have a role at some sites. I expect, and hope, that Apache 1.3 will continue to be maintained on at least a "security fix" level for as long as, say, Linux 2.0 or 2.2. (Apache 1.2 is not a good comparision, as that version of the server really was inadequate for most sites.) Yes, the documentation for the Apache 2 API is poor. Yes, Apache 2 really is still closer to "beta" than "1.0" on the release stability scale. But despite all these shortcomings, the fact is that it wasn't even that hard to port my module to Apache 2. I kept telling myself I would never bother, but when I got down to trying it took all of maybe one night to paste over the differences and make the module work. You might ask why I haven't documented the process if it was so easy. Well, I don't want to spend two nights on it :) The key is to look not in the core source code but in the module source code. Find an Apache module in the core tarball that does something similar to yours, and see what changed in it. That gives you a pretty good guide to the changes. Documentation by example. But, hey, it works. My own module is fairly simple but just diffing its 2.0 and 1.3 versions should already give you a pretty good idea as to exactly what changes you would need to make to port your module.
Has Apache peaked? (ZDNet) Posted Oct 11, 2002 6:15 UTC (Fri) by mongre26 (guest, #4224) [Link] I have actually been doing some performance comparisons between apache 2.0.43 and 1.3.27. on Linux (2.4.18 RH) and all I can say is wow, apache 2 is a whole seperate decade in terms of performance.What has been most noticable is how well 2.0 scales compared to 1.3. 1.3 tends to handle load well up to a point, then it completely hoses the system. Granted I have not applied all the performance tweaks or latest kernel patches, but where 1.3 fails 2.0 keeps on trucking and that is a full default compile and install. Also while PHP and other modules may have issues I understand 2.0 sitting in front of tomcat(catalina) works very well. Speaking of catalina, it is not like the apache group is only an http server, they are also pretty much the nexus of all things java on the server side. Once the 2.0 module stuff works itself out I am sure 2.0 will experience more popularity than ever. As far as these ZDNet goofs beaking off, yet again their group of technonothings use their narrow proprietary software world view to write an article on open source software that completely misses the point. The only scandal here is how the author of the article managed to get this gig... Which leads me to gripe number 2 in the last week or so, all this articles about how the slapper "virus" is making all of us Unix bigots eat our words. 1) It is not a virus it is a worm you dorks. Sorry just had to get that off my chest, been bugging me. :)
|
|
||||||||||||