You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com> on 2007/06/17 22:57:29 UTC
httpd x64 windows binaries
Hi all,
I'm mostly a lurker on the mailing list and try to hit the httpd-dev
channel when i can (not to often :().
I have unofficial 64-bit binaries on my site:
http://www.blackdot.be/?inc=apache/binaries
I reguraly get the request where the "official" 64-bit binaries are
since they don't trust mine to run in a production environment (I
consider this a good idea and I discurage usage of my binaries in
production environments)
So is there any time frame for official binaries to be released in
64-bit? the 2.2 tree seems to compile fine without any problems. I
know there is no noticeable speed improvement only a slight memory
usage increase. But there does seem to be a demand for it.
I'm getting that question more and more (2-3x per month now)... and I
don't want to be held reliable when someone does use it in a
production environment and loses data due to it and blames me for his
loss.
(Or should I just add a disclaimer? if so what should it state to be
on the safe side?)
--
~Jorge
Re: [Slightly OT] Re: httpd x64 windows binaries
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 6/18/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
> >>
> >> One major issue is;
> >>
> >> http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/archive/1/459847/100/0/threaded
> >>
> >> where MS's response was entirely unsatisfactory w.r.t. POSIX compliance.
> >>
> > Does MS ever follow standards? I know most programs don't compile in
> > 64-bit while there is no obvious reason it shouldn't. USE_32BIT_TIME_T
> > usually fixes that... that link you gave me seems to explain why :)
>
> Of course we toggle that for 32 bit builds; trouble is - for a 64 bit build
> we really don't want to use a tiny-time_t, true?
>
> But maybe that is the answer, for now :-/
Yes its far from ideal but I compile a few packages for personally
usage in x64 aside from httpd binaries. All need the USE_32BIT_TIME_T
=(
Lets not get started on compiling from CLI and getting machine type =
x64 compiler isn't mismatches and the other way around :( the only
solid way to compile x64 or x86 for that matter is using the IDE the
CLI methode is basically broke or crippled.
(starting the vs envirement from cmd.exe located in SysWow64 seem to
work though)
>
> > Are there any others that convalent? I don't mind linking to just one
> > but it would seem unfair to just provided one when there are possibly
> > more.
>
> Agreed; is anyone aware of other commercial companies offering supported
> Apache httpd Win32 packages?
>
For now it is still Convalent only... the others mentioned to my
knowledge provide support only.
On 6/18/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
> > Apart from covalent, I'd make ApacheLounge the #1 external link.
> > I don't know if he offers commercial support, but I suspect
> > he does. He certainly has a lively Apache/Windows community
> > and offers free downloads of Windows binaries of Apache itself
> > and popular third-party modules.
>
> I think you lost the context; we are trying to point out where one
> can find 'commercial warranties' - we weren't focused on where you
> can get more unsupported binaries. E.g. there's an AL clause that
> says 'NO WARRANTY' and Jorge is worried about people who just read
> past that and later come back to him. It's one small slice of the
> community which 'needs a warranty' that he was trying to address.
>
Yes, I'm not looking to link to community sites or other unofficial binaries.
But to placed where people can get commercial warranties and such.
I somewhat actively answer questions on the forum mostly relates to
the x64 binaries.
There is also a section there specificly for x64 where I have moderator powers.
Lost time I checked Stefen didn't provide warranties only limited
payed support via skype.
support NEQ warranties but I'll contact hem when I'm updating the page
to see if he does provide them. Can't hurt to check.
On 6/18/07, Lee Fisher <bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Agreed; is anyone aware of other commercial companies offering supported
> > Apache httpd Win32 packages?
> >
> DeveloperSide.NET's WAMP, perhaps?
> <http://www.devside.net/server/webdeveloper#support>
>
>
Again like the ApacheLounge he provides support and not warranties.
I use to provide answers on the forums too but it as vastly expanded
beyond apache alone,
now he also provides support for php, mysql, phpmyadmin,...
--
~Jorge
Re: [Slightly OT] Re: httpd x64 windows binaries
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
I've update my page:
http://www.blackdot.be/?inc=apache/binaries
Would this be sufficient?
Re: [Slightly OT] Re: httpd x64 windows binaries
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Issac Goldstand wrote:
> You know, I often think of offering this from my own consulting company;
> but I often wonder what exactly it entails... It worries me that I'd be
> inviting myself to get sued for a bug that already e4xists in Apache,
> whether or not I'm able to get it subsequently fit. Would it be asking
> too much for you to put on your Covalent hat for a moment, pretend that
> I'm a prospective client and tell me what Covalent would and would not
> commit to support/warranty wise? Or am I being way to presumptuous by
> asking?
It's based on a contract / SLA's and the like, and I'm not really the
person to explain it (I'm the one they club like a baby seal to get
the customer's bugs fixed yesterday :) So I'll bounce the question off
someone else and see if I can get an 'official' answer for you.
[Slightly OT] Re: httpd x64 windows binaries
Posted by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>.
You know, I often think of offering this from my own consulting company;
but I often wonder what exactly it entails... It worries me that I'd be
inviting myself to get sued for a bug that already e4xists in Apache,
whether or not I'm able to get it subsequently fit. Would it be asking
too much for you to put on your Covalent hat for a moment, pretend that
I'm a prospective client and tell me what Covalent would and would not
commit to support/warranty wise? Or am I being way to presumptuous by
asking?
Issac
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
>
> I think you lost the context; we are trying to point out where one
> can find 'commercial warranties' - we weren't focused on where you
> can get more unsupported binaries. E.g. there's an AL clause that
> says 'NO WARRANTY' and Jorge is worried about people who just read
> past that and later come back to him. It's one small slice of the
> community which 'needs a warranty' that he was trying to address.
>
> Bill
>
Re: httpd x64 windows binaries
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Nick Kew wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:51:00 -0500
> "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>> Agreed; is anyone aware of other commercial companies offering
>> supported Apache httpd Win32 packages?
>
> Apart from covalent, I'd make ApacheLounge the #1 external link.
> I don't know if he offers commercial support, but I suspect
> he does. He certainly has a lively Apache/Windows community
> and offers free downloads of Windows binaries of Apache itself
> and popular third-party modules.
I think you lost the context; we are trying to point out where one
can find 'commercial warranties' - we weren't focused on where you
can get more unsupported binaries. E.g. there's an AL clause that
says 'NO WARRANTY' and Jorge is worried about people who just read
past that and later come back to him. It's one small slice of the
community which 'needs a warranty' that he was trying to address.
Bill
Re: httpd x64 windows binaries
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:51:00 -0500
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Agreed; is anyone aware of other commercial companies offering
> supported Apache httpd Win32 packages?
>
> Bill
Apart from covalent, I'd make ApacheLounge the #1 external link.
I don't know if he offers commercial support, but I suspect
he does. He certainly has a lively Apache/Windows community
and offers free downloads of Windows binaries of Apache itself
and popular third-party modules.
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/
Re: httpd x64 windows binaries
Posted by Lee Fisher <bl...@gmail.com>.
> Agreed; is anyone aware of other commercial companies offering supported
> Apache httpd Win32 packages?
>
DeveloperSide.NET's WAMP, perhaps?
<http://www.devside.net/server/webdeveloper#support>
Re: httpd x64 windows binaries
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
>>
>> One major issue is;
>>
>> http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/archive/1/459847/100/0/threaded
>>
>> where MS's response was entirely unsatisfactory w.r.t. POSIX compliance.
>>
> Does MS ever follow standards? I know most programs don't compile in
> 64-bit while there is no obvious reason it shouldn't. USE_32BIT_TIME_T
> usually fixes that... that link you gave me seems to explain why :)
Of course we toggle that for 32 bit builds; trouble is - for a 64 bit build
we really don't want to use a tiny-time_t, true?
But maybe that is the answer, for now :-/
> Are there any others that convalent? I don't mind linking to just one
> but it would seem unfair to just provided one when there are possibly
> more.
Agreed; is anyone aware of other commercial companies offering supported
Apache httpd Win32 packages?
Bill
Re: httpd x64 windows binaries
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 6/17/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
> >
> > So is there any time frame for official binaries to be released in
> > 64-bit? the 2.2 tree seems to compile fine without any problems. I
> > know there is no noticeable speed improvement only a slight memory
> > usage increase. But there does seem to be a demand for it.
>
> Yup. Most folks see they are on a 64 bit system and assume a 64 bit binary
> is a win. Of course, this is true if you want a massively cached server
> running a memcache type solution instead of disk-cached. Otherwise? It's
> not likely to be a huge win.
Well i can see memory hugging php scripts getting helped here aswel...
since there are now also unofficial php binaries.
Maybe I/somebody else can add an article to the wiki why there are no
official 64-bit binaries?
>
> Can they be offered now? Sure, I'd build the most modern 2.2.x flavors
> as a 64 bit binary, but of course that means all the dependencies as well.
> And confusion will undoubtedly result, from loading 32 bit builds of third
> party modules, etc.
>
> One major issue is;
>
> http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/archive/1/459847/100/0/threaded
>
> where MS's response was entirely unsatisfactory w.r.t. POSIX compliance.
>
Does MS ever follow standards? I know most programs don't compile in
64-bit while there is no obvious reason it shouldn't. USE_32BIT_TIME_T
usually fixes that... that link you gave me seems to explain why :)
> > I'm getting that question more and more (2-3x per month now)... and I
> > don't want to be held reliable when someone does use it in a
> > production environment and loses data due to it and blames me for his
> > loss.
>
> Likewise, all ASF committers can post binaries, but we don't accept
> external binaries due to a similar sense-of-risk.
>
> > (Or should I just add a disclaimer? if so what should it state to be
> > on the safe side?)
>
> Definitely highlight the Apache License 2.0 (including it's disclaimer
> of warranty clause.) It isn't an absolute shield, but it is very
> important that they pay attention to it. Perhaps if they want support,
> places such as (disclaimer: my employer) www.covalent.net or similar
> commercial offerings which include Apache httpd would provide the warranty
> they expect for hosting a production system.
I'll do that when my exams are over (next friday)...
I don't mind putting some links to some companies that give commercial
support for apache.
Are there any others that convalent? I don't mind linking to just one
but it would seem unfair to just provided one when there are possibly
more.
--
~Jorge
Re: httpd x64 windows binaries
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
>
> So is there any time frame for official binaries to be released in
> 64-bit? the 2.2 tree seems to compile fine without any problems. I
> know there is no noticeable speed improvement only a slight memory
> usage increase. But there does seem to be a demand for it.
Yup. Most folks see they are on a 64 bit system and assume a 64 bit binary
is a win. Of course, this is true if you want a massively cached server
running a memcache type solution instead of disk-cached. Otherwise? It's
not likely to be a huge win.
Can they be offered now? Sure, I'd build the most modern 2.2.x flavors
as a 64 bit binary, but of course that means all the dependencies as well.
And confusion will undoubtedly result, from loading 32 bit builds of third
party modules, etc.
One major issue is;
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/archive/1/459847/100/0/threaded
where MS's response was entirely unsatisfactory w.r.t. POSIX compliance.
> I'm getting that question more and more (2-3x per month now)... and I
> don't want to be held reliable when someone does use it in a
> production environment and loses data due to it and blames me for his
> loss.
Likewise, all ASF committers can post binaries, but we don't accept
external binaries due to a similar sense-of-risk.
> (Or should I just add a disclaimer? if so what should it state to be
> on the safe side?)
Definitely highlight the Apache License 2.0 (including it's disclaimer
of warranty clause.) It isn't an absolute shield, but it is very
important that they pay attention to it. Perhaps if they want support,
places such as (disclaimer: my employer) www.covalent.net or similar
commercial offerings which include Apache httpd would provide the warranty
they expect for hosting a production system.
Bill