You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@httpd.apache.org by Wayne Cox <wm...@xxiii.com> on 2004/03/01 22:26:43 UTC
[users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Hi All,
Have a question about Apache versions I can't locate an answer to:
Why are versions 1.3 and 2.0 both still actively maintained?
Usually I go for the "latest & greatest" version; but I really just need a
simple, stripped down lean & mean server. So I'm wondering if 1.3 is
substantially faster or smaller or something else advantageous for me?
-Thanks, Wayne
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by Kalpan S Shah <ks...@lucent.com>.
Hello,
Going 2.0 from 1.3:
I have came across one problem for that I need help.
In my .htusers file, some password where encrypted using SHA, thus
password looked like, userid:{SHA}<some sting>
In the 2.0, this password could not be parsed (got invalid password).
I do not know, how 2.0 can still support SHA.
Thanks and Regards,
- Kalpan Shah
On 3/1/2004 4:38 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Wayne Cox wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Have a question about Apache versions I can't locate an answer to:
>>
>>Why are versions 1.3 and 2.0 both still actively maintained?
>>
>>Usually I go for the "latest & greatest" version; but I really just need a
>>simple, stripped down lean & mean server. So I'm wondering if 1.3 is
>>substantially faster or smaller or something else advantageous for me?
>>
>>
>
>This is briefly explained here:
>http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
>where it tells you to "Use the Apache 1.3.29 version if you need to use
>third party modules that are not yet available as an Apache 2.0 module."
>
>In general, I advise you to use 2.0 unless you have a specific reason to
>choose 1.3. The most common specific reason would be a legacy module that
>has not been converted to the 2.0 API.
>
>Joshua.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
>See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
>
>
>
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Wayne Cox wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Have a question about Apache versions I can't locate an answer to:
>
> Why are versions 1.3 and 2.0 both still actively maintained?
>
> Usually I go for the "latest & greatest" version; but I really just need a
> simple, stripped down lean & mean server. So I'm wondering if 1.3 is
> substantially faster or smaller or something else advantageous for me?
This is briefly explained here:
http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
where it tells you to "Use the Apache 1.3.29 version if you need to use
third party modules that are not yet available as an Apache 2.0 module."
In general, I advise you to use 2.0 unless you have a specific reason to
choose 1.3. The most common specific reason would be a legacy module that
has not been converted to the 2.0 API.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Jack L. Stone wrote:
> No doubt this is a common question, but is there a good URL that presents a
> good summary of the "enhancements?"
I think this URL was mentioned earlier in the thread:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/new_features_2_0.html
It is not comprehensive, but it has a significant list.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by "Jack L. Stone" <ja...@sage-one.net>.
At 07:40 PM 3.1.2004 -0500, you wrote:
>
>On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Wayne Cox wrote:
>> > Usually I go for the "latest & greatest" version; but I really just
need a
>> > simple, stripped down lean & mean server. So I'm wondering if 1.3 is
>> > substantially faster or smaller or something else advantageous for me?
>>
>> I'd basically say the opposite of other answers here. Apache 1.3.x is a
>> proven and stable codebase. Unless you need some of the features in
>> 2.0.x, stick with 1.3.x.
>
>Did you say the same thing to people asking you whether they should
>upgrade from php2 to php3 to php4 to php5 Rasmus?
>
>I think the implication that 2.0 is not "proven and stable" is rather
>unfair and untrue. It will never be as stable as 1.3, of course, simply
>for the reason that there is very little active development of 1.3.
>
>Even if you don't need any of the many new features in 2.0, you should be
>aware that almost all development work goes into that codebase. So if you
>are starting out and you want a server with an easy upgrade path to future
>enhancements, you should go with 2.0. That is why I recommend it over
>1.3.
>
>Of course, if you already have a 1.3 install and you are happy with it,
>then there is no particular reason to upgrade until you need those
>enhancements.
>
>Joshua.
>
No doubt this is a common question, but is there a good URL that presents a
good summary of the "enhancements?"
Thanks for the tips....
Best regards,
Jack L. Stone,
Administrator
SageOne Net
http://www.sage-one.net
jackstone@sage-one.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
> The problem here is probably that you are thinking of a single limited
> situation, your own. Where you are writing against the Apache2 API and
> you have full control over your OS version and the 3rd-party libraries you
> are going to use. If you can tell me how in the world we mutex every
> potential unsafe 3rd-party library call which may be safe on one platform
> or even safe when run against certain versions of libc on a given
> platform, then you win the problem solved award of the year.
man apr.
nd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by dlang <dl...@invendra.net>.
I've run several different MPM's with apache 2.0 and haven't seen a
significant performance difference between them. I haven't been able to
run head-to-head comparisons with apache 1.3, but about three years ago I
worked on running the same codebase there. the numbers I have noted from
the 1.3 tests are better then from the 2.0 tests (including with the
threaded MPM) and while parts of my codebase have changed (and may have
gotten fatter and slower, or they may have gotten faster who knows) there
are some parts of the codebase that are so simple they haven't changed
significantly and they don't show any wonderful improvement in 2.0
I've also run into severe bottlenecks on 2.0 on busy servers and requests
for help have gone completely unanswered, several times (we ended up
increasing the number of servers by 30-40% so that apache could handle the
load that the netscape webserver was handleing before)
we've also had to maintain patches for 2.0 to fix things that changed
between 1.3 and 2.0 (it's good that this patch is getting smaller over
time, but how many years do we need to wait until 2.0 can match 1.3 in
simple things like creating the environment for the CGI's the same?)
while 2.0 may be a wonderful base to build arbatrary servers on, that
doesn't help much if what you want to run is a webserver with CGI's. I
also would stick with 1.3 unless a direct comparison of the two showed
that 2.0 was a win in my installation.
David Lang
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 00:42:15 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
> From: Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@apache.org>
> Reply-To: users@httpd.apache.org
> To: users@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
>
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, [ISO-8859-15] Andr� Malo wrote:
> > However, Apache 2 has a small marketshare (yet). No question. One reason is,
> > that people tell all the time "stick with 1.3" without seeing their
> > situation. How do you know that 1.3 is better for them? Where the heck does
> > that ignorance come from?
>
> Did you even read the original question? He stated he wanted a simple
> lean and mean server not necessarily the latest and greatest. I think the
> situation was well-defined.
>
> > Threading is really *so* new.
> > First, you can choose a non-threaded MPM. However, if you choose to use
> > worker, where the heck is the problem? Threaded MPMs are developed since
> > 2000 (!). You mean, because mod_php is after over 3 years of time not able
> > to implement some mutexes, other people suffer from the same problem?
> >
> > You're wrong.
>
> The problem here is probably that you are thinking of a single limited
> situation, your own. Where you are writing against the Apache2 API and
> you have full control over your OS version and the 3rd-party libraries you
> are going to use. If you can tell me how in the world we mutex every
> potential unsafe 3rd-party library call which may be safe on one platform
> or even safe when run against certain versions of libc on a given
> platform, then you win the problem solved award of the year.
>
> > Anyway.
> > 1.3 has many drawbacks. In its performance, in its API and in its
> > configuration. 2.0 fixed many of these problems and *is* *stable* for over a
> > year.
>
> Unfortunately it was released almost 2 years ago as stable.
>
> But I think you are blowing this out of proportion. I think some of you
> guys think I am singlehandedly preventing Apache2 from gaining the use it
> deserves. Believe me, I have no such agenda. I would like nothing more
> than have a great Apache2 web server that solves all our problems. And if
> me telling people who are looking for a stable web server to use Apache1
> unless they need Apache2 features is all it takes to prevent the world
> from switching to Apache2 then the world is a seriously messed up place.
>
> -Rasmus
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
> See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
> However, Apache 2 has a small marketshare (yet). No question. One reason is,
> that people tell all the time "stick with 1.3" without seeing their
> situation. How do you know that 1.3 is better for them? Where the heck does
> that ignorance come from?
Did you even read the original question? He stated he wanted a simple
lean and mean server not necessarily the latest and greatest. I think the
situation was well-defined.
> Threading is really *so* new.
> First, you can choose a non-threaded MPM. However, if you choose to use
> worker, where the heck is the problem? Threaded MPMs are developed since
> 2000 (!). You mean, because mod_php is after over 3 years of time not able
> to implement some mutexes, other people suffer from the same problem?
>
> You're wrong.
The problem here is probably that you are thinking of a single limited
situation, your own. Where you are writing against the Apache2 API and
you have full control over your OS version and the 3rd-party libraries you
are going to use. If you can tell me how in the world we mutex every
potential unsafe 3rd-party library call which may be safe on one platform
or even safe when run against certain versions of libc on a given
platform, then you win the problem solved award of the year.
> Anyway.
> 1.3 has many drawbacks. In its performance, in its API and in its
> configuration. 2.0 fixed many of these problems and *is* *stable* for over a
> year.
Unfortunately it was released almost 2 years ago as stable.
But I think you are blowing this out of proportion. I think some of you
guys think I am singlehandedly preventing Apache2 from gaining the use it
deserves. Believe me, I have no such agenda. I would like nothing more
than have a great Apache2 web server that solves all our problems. And if
me telling people who are looking for a stable web server to use Apache1
unless they need Apache2 features is all it takes to prevent the world
from switching to Apache2 then the world is a seriously messed up place.
-Rasmus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
>
> > * Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > Did you say the same thing to people asking you whether they should
> > > > upgrade from php2 to php3 to php4 to php5 Rasmus?
> > >
> > > In some cases sure if indeed that was the honest answer at the time.
> >
> > A pointer would have been nice here.
>
> A pointer to what? Frankly we don't have this problem in the PHP world.
So you'd still recommend to use PHP3 instead of PHP4, because it's so
stable? I don't buy that.
> It is rather the opposite. People start using non-production versions of
> PHP before we even suggest it. Apache2 is 2 years into its production
> server status at this point and it has approximately 5% marketshare.
(I don't know what your sources are, but I'd guess, at least you know how
these number are computed).
However, Apache 2 has a small marketshare (yet). No question. One reason is,
that people tell all the time "stick with 1.3" without seeing their
situation. How do you know that 1.3 is better for them? Where the heck does
that ignorance come from?
> Apache-1.3.x is still up around 65%. People are not migrating in droves
> despite it being marked production-quality for 2 years and bundled as the
> default server in most major Linux distros and hence it has not become
> mainstream yet.
I'm working for a big German company which started migrating quite a long
time ago. Because it's stable and has a way better API for our own
modules. It's even faster.
Your argument doesn't apply.
> The vast majority of people
> out there use Apache-1.3.x with great success.
Oh sure. I'm looking for a hassle-free Browser. You'd recommend MSIE because
of its marketshare?
I'm looking for a hassle-free MTA. You'd recommend sendmail?
> It has been battletested
> by some of the biggest names in the business for years.
Because there was no real alternative. Now we have one. It's time to start
using it.
> I would not
> personally launch any sort of critical production site on Apache2 at this
> point
We do. And we do it very sucessfully. What you would do or not, may or may
not apply to other people. But the "don't use it at this point" you're
spreading for the last *years* is not constructive. To give a good answer
you need to first ask the guy, what he wants to do and how he wants to do.
All replies without such a reflection are ... just FUD. Not more and not
less.
> If you know what you are doing, perhaps. But you have to understand the
> differences between the mpms to begin with. Most of the people I run
> across who have problems with 2.0 don't even know which mpm they are
> running when I ask them. They don't know that certain mpms don't work
> well on certain operating systems and that they shouldn't use any sort of
> threaded mpm with various combinations and configurations of third-party
> modules. And I know all these things and I am still not convinced myself
> because I worry about the caveats I have missed.
Interesting. That people are not able to read a documentation is *really* an
essential argument.
> This complexity comes in the form of what I still consider an overly
> complicated and inefficient filter API,
Is it? Really? It's flexible and it's fast. Sure, one needs to understand
it (suprise, suprise) *if one wants to program it*. What does the end user
care?!
> the complexity of multiple mpms
> with different characteristics, the almost insurmountable complexity of
> threading if a threaded mpm is chosen and the complexity of a new codebase
> with a completely new and unfamiliar API.
Threading is really *so* new.
First, you can choose a non-threaded MPM. However, if you choose to use
worker, where the heck is the problem? Threaded MPMs are developed since
2000 (!). You mean, because mod_php is after over 3 years of time not able
to implement some mutexes, other people suffer from the same problem?
You're wrong.
> I know I annoy people who spend a lot of time on 2.0 with my seeming lack
> of enthusiam for it,
You're spreading FUD. *That's* annoying. Critics with background are always
welcome. Patches also. You know that, you're an ASF member.
> but this is one of the benefits of working on open
> source as opposed to being a proprietary software company. Open Source is
> transparent.
Yes. Everyone can contribute. If you don't like it, just change it. Simple,
isn't it?
*sigh*
Anyway.
1.3 has many drawbacks. In its performance, in its API and in its
configuration. 2.0 fixed many of these problems and *is* *stable* for over a
year. I'd recommend any without a good reason to setup a current 2.0.
nd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, [ISO-8859-15] Andr� Malo wrote:
> * Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > > Did you say the same thing to people asking you whether they should
> > > upgrade from php2 to php3 to php4 to php5 Rasmus?
> >
> > In some cases sure if indeed that was the honest answer at the time.
>
> A pointer would have been nice here.
A pointer to what? Frankly we don't have this problem in the PHP world.
It is rather the opposite. People start using non-production versions of
PHP before we even suggest it. Apache2 is 2 years into its production
server status at this point and it has approximately 5% marketshare.
Apache-1.3.x is still up around 65%. People are not migrating in droves
despite it being marked production-quality for 2 years and bundled as the
default server in most major Linux distros and hence it has not become
mainstream yet. My point is pretty simple here. Someone asked which
server to use for a hassle-free experience. The vast majority of people
out there use Apache-1.3.x with great success. It has been battletested
by some of the biggest names in the business for years. I would not
personally launch any sort of critical production site on Apache2 at this
point and when people ask me which server they should use I will tell them
honestly that they should stick with what works unless they need some of
the features specific to 2.0.
This is not a slight against Apache2, but rather a testimony to the fact
that Apache1 is a solid piece of software that does what it was designed
to do extremely well. There is nothing wrong with telling people to
continue to use something we know works.
> > As
> > far as I am concerned advising people to stick with 1.3 is the honest
> > answer at this point. I know you disagree with that and that is fine.
> > But for the average user who just wants a working web server where he can
> > plug in all sorts of existing modules and just have it work reliably with
> > a minimum of hassle, 1.3 fits the bill.
>
> So does 2.0.
If you know what you are doing, perhaps. But you have to understand the
differences between the mpms to begin with. Most of the people I run
across who have problems with 2.0 don't even know which mpm they are
running when I ask them. They don't know that certain mpms don't work
well on certain operating systems and that they shouldn't use any sort of
threaded mpm with various combinations and configurations of third-party
modules. And I know all these things and I am still not convinced myself
because I worry about the caveats I have missed.
When I build something I like to start with really simple building blocks
I can understand. There will be enough complexity added by my own system
and I don't want to worry about my underlying platform adding complexity.
This complexity comes in the form of what I still consider an overly
complicated and inefficient filter API, the complexity of multiple mpms
with different characteristics, the almost insurmountable complexity of
threading if a threaded mpm is chosen and the complexity of a new codebase
with a completely new and unfamiliar API.
I know I annoy people who spend a lot of time on 2.0 with my seeming lack
of enthusiam for it, but this is one of the benefits of working on open
source as opposed to being a proprietary software company. Open Source is
transparent. There is no PR department that hides the opinions of
troublesome employees behind a corporate facade and makes everyone who
speaks publically tow the party line. Users get to see both sides of a
discussion like this which would normally be hidden because a software
company would want to hype it latest products to drive revenue. And this
is also the answer to one of the original questions in this thread which
was about why are both versions still actively maintained. We are not
driven by revenue, we don't have anything particular to gain by pushing
people to a new sparkling version. Our goal is to produce good and useful
software that works. If we do that everything else is secondary.
-Rasmus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Did you say the same thing to people asking you whether they should
> > upgrade from php2 to php3 to php4 to php5 Rasmus?
>
> In some cases sure if indeed that was the honest answer at the time.
A pointer would have been nice here.
> As
> far as I am concerned advising people to stick with 1.3 is the honest
> answer at this point. I know you disagree with that and that is fine.
> But for the average user who just wants a working web server where he can
> plug in all sorts of existing modules and just have it work reliably with
> a minimum of hassle, 1.3 fits the bill.
So does 2.0.
nd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Joshua Slive wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Wayne Cox wrote:
> > > Usually I go for the "latest & greatest" version; but I really just need a
> > > simple, stripped down lean & mean server. So I'm wondering if 1.3 is
> > > substantially faster or smaller or something else advantageous for me?
> >
> > I'd basically say the opposite of other answers here. Apache 1.3.x is a
> > proven and stable codebase. Unless you need some of the features in
> > 2.0.x, stick with 1.3.x.
>
> Did you say the same thing to people asking you whether they should
> upgrade from php2 to php3 to php4 to php5 Rasmus?
In some cases sure if indeed that was the honest answer at the time. As
far as I am concerned advising people to stick with 1.3 is the honest
answer at this point. I know you disagree with that and that is fine.
But for the average user who just wants a working web server where he can
plug in all sorts of existing modules and just have it work reliably with
a minimum of hassle, 1.3 fits the bill.
-Rasmus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Nick Kew wrote:
> > I have the impression the PHP folks are stuck two or three years in
> > the past (and growing). Now we have it from the top ...
>
> None of this really has anything to do with PHP, but since you seem to
Pardon? That was "the PHP folks", not PHP. It seems to me to be key
members of the PHP community who are spreading FUD about Apache 2.
> You can add UNIX to this list of things stuck in the past then. There are
> a lot of commonly used UNIX libraries that are not threadsafe.
Who in the Unix community is spreading FUD of this kind?
I don't think "SCO" is an answer: their FUD is firmly centered on legal
arguments, which makes it qualitatively different.
>
> > Could this be (subconsciously) an artifact of how PHP grew? Apache 1.x
> > was a simple webserver, with limited extensibility outside the main
> > handler, so almost all web applications had to live in the handler (e.g.
> > CGI and PHP) or separated out (e.g. Tomcat apps). With 2.x offering an
> > altogether more powerful applications platform, PHP's reason to exist is
> > by no means eliminated, but is much reduced. And its weaknesses become
> > more important, both because of threaded MPMs being less forgiving,
> > and because the alternatives are more attractive.
>
> I didn't really parse this. PHP is not limited to a single handler. You
I didn't say it was. I meant how the Great Unwashed - those who read
the FUD on the PHP website and don't upgrade - use it. How many users
(as opposed to programmers) do advanced work with PHP, as opposed to
installing canned scripts and glorified SSI?
> And yes, PHP works with Apache2 as both a filter and a handler.
But the FUD at the website gives a different impression.
> And which
> weaknesses do you mean? I guess you are alluding to a lack of thread
> safety. PHP itself is threadsafe, but many common UNIX libraries that
> people like to link into PHP are not.
Indeed, and there seems to be a lack of awareness of this, even in
the core PHP developer community. But it's not just threading that
bothers me. I have in mind in particular one talk at ApacheCon, from
someone with a high profile in PHP. Leaving aside thread safety, I found
the speaker's ignorance on his *application* positively scary, and his
armwaving "it's very fast" lacked any credibility.
> There is nothing wrong with having a more powerful applications platform,
> but the person asking this question asked for a web server, not an
> applications platform. They likely don't care that Apache2 can be made
> into a pop3 server or an ftp server.
Neither do I. But I do care about having a more powerful and versatile
platform for my web applications, using HTTP.
> > > Even if you don't need any of the many new features in 2.0, you should be
> > > aware that almost all development work goes into that codebase.
> >
> > Point of order: shouldn't that be 2.x - since 2.0 is the current stable
> > version, with some people describing 2.1 in terms like "pretty stable"?
>
> Ah, so we really should be telling everyone to switch to 2.1 at this
> point?
Who said that? I was referring to Joshua's comment about where
development work is happening. No, I use 2.0 operationally, and would
recommend it to anyone else, barring a compelling reason to do otherwise
(for values of "otherwise" that are as likely to mean Zeus as Apache1.x).
> reports on these to indicate that people are actually using them. Until
> we see some traction which would require Apache2 to get well beyond its
> current 5% marketshare we are going to concentrate our efforts where the
> users are.
Should we take that as a statement of committment to Windows/MSIE?
--
Nick Kew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Nick Kew wrote:
> I have the impression the PHP folks are stuck two or three years in
> the past (and growing). Now we have it from the top ...
None of this really has anything to do with PHP, but since you seem to
think it does I will answer these.
You can add UNIX to this list of things stuck in the past then. There are
a lot of commonly used UNIX libraries that are not threadsafe.
> Could this be (subconsciously) an artifact of how PHP grew? Apache 1.x
> was a simple webserver, with limited extensibility outside the main
> handler, so almost all web applications had to live in the handler (e.g.
> CGI and PHP) or separated out (e.g. Tomcat apps). With 2.x offering an
> altogether more powerful applications platform, PHP's reason to exist is
> by no means eliminated, but is much reduced. And its weaknesses become
> more important, both because of threaded MPMs being less forgiving,
> and because the alternatives are more attractive.
I didn't really parse this. PHP is not limited to a single handler. You
can hook PHP into any stage of the request handling structure you want.
And yes, PHP works with Apache2 as both a filter and a handler. And which
weaknesses do you mean? I guess you are alluding to a lack of thread
safety. PHP itself is threadsafe, but many common UNIX libraries that
people like to link into PHP are not. This can be solved by disconnecting
PHP from Apache and using a series of pre-forked PHP request handling
processes in either a FastCGI architecture or even by using thttpd or
Apache1 as the request broker. But there has to be some damn compelling
reason for adding this extra layer of indirection and I simply don't see
this reason in Apache2 yet.
There is nothing wrong with having a more powerful applications platform,
but the person asking this question asked for a web server, not an
applications platform. They likely don't care that Apache2 can be made
into a pop3 server or an ftp server. They probably already have pop and
ftp servers that work ok.
> > Even if you don't need any of the many new features in 2.0, you should be
> > aware that almost all development work goes into that codebase.
>
> Point of order: shouldn't that be 2.x - since 2.0 is the current stable
> version, with some people describing 2.1 in terms like "pretty stable"?
Ah, so we really should be telling everyone to switch to 2.1 at this
point? Exactly how many people out there are running that server? It's
not even on the scope yet. Let's add a bit of realism here and give
people stuff we know works and leave the beta-testing to people who
specifically indicate they are looking for bleeding-edge software. The
PHP Apache2 filter module has been around for years now, the handler is a
bit newer, but it has also been around for a while. We need to see bug
reports on these to indicate that people are actually using them. Until
we see some traction which would require Apache2 to get well beyond its
current 5% marketshare we are going to concentrate our efforts where the
users are.
-Rasmus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Wayne Cox wrote:
> > > Usually I go for the "latest & greatest" version; but I really just need a
> > > simple, stripped down lean & mean server. So I'm wondering if 1.3 is
> > > substantially faster or smaller or something else advantageous for me?
> >
> > I'd basically say the opposite of other answers here. Apache 1.3.x is a
> > proven and stable codebase. Unless you need some of the features in
> > 2.0.x, stick with 1.3.x.
>
> Did you say the same thing to people asking you whether they should
> upgrade from php2 to php3 to php4 to php5 Rasmus?
>
> I think the implication that 2.0 is not "proven and stable" is rather
> unfair and untrue. It will never be as stable as 1.3, of course, simply
> for the reason that there is very little active development of 1.3.
I have the impression the PHP folks are stuck two or three years in
the past (and growing). Now we have it from the top ...
Could this be (subconsciously) an artifact of how PHP grew? Apache 1.x
was a simple webserver, with limited extensibility outside the main
handler, so almost all web applications had to live in the handler (e.g.
CGI and PHP) or separated out (e.g. Tomcat apps). With 2.x offering an
altogether more powerful applications platform, PHP's reason to exist is
by no means eliminated, but is much reduced. And its weaknesses become
more important, both because of threaded MPMs being less forgiving,
and because the alternatives are more attractive.
> Even if you don't need any of the many new features in 2.0, you should be
> aware that almost all development work goes into that codebase.
Point of order: shouldn't that be 2.x - since 2.0 is the current stable
version, with some people describing 2.1 in terms like "pretty stable"?
--
Nick Kew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Wayne Cox wrote:
> > Usually I go for the "latest & greatest" version; but I really just need a
> > simple, stripped down lean & mean server. So I'm wondering if 1.3 is
> > substantially faster or smaller or something else advantageous for me?
>
> I'd basically say the opposite of other answers here. Apache 1.3.x is a
> proven and stable codebase. Unless you need some of the features in
> 2.0.x, stick with 1.3.x.
Did you say the same thing to people asking you whether they should
upgrade from php2 to php3 to php4 to php5 Rasmus?
I think the implication that 2.0 is not "proven and stable" is rather
unfair and untrue. It will never be as stable as 1.3, of course, simply
for the reason that there is very little active development of 1.3.
Even if you don't need any of the many new features in 2.0, you should be
aware that almost all development work goes into that codebase. So if you
are starting out and you want a server with an easy upgrade path to future
enhancements, you should go with 2.0. That is why I recommend it over
1.3.
Of course, if you already have a 1.3 install and you are happy with it,
then there is no particular reason to upgrade until you need those
enhancements.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Wayne Cox wrote:
> Usually I go for the "latest & greatest" version; but I really just need a
> simple, stripped down lean & mean server. So I'm wondering if 1.3 is
> substantially faster or smaller or something else advantageous for me?
I'd basically say the opposite of other answers here. Apache 1.3.x is a
proven and stable codebase. Unless you need some of the features in
2.0.x, stick with 1.3.x.
-Rasmus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 1.3 vs 2.0
Posted by cb...@reddyus.com.
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/new_features_2_0.html