Re: Fast by default

[Jie Gao <J....@isu.usyd.edu.au>]

Hi All

I would like to offer some information just to help decision making in this area;

1. Host virtualisation often means you do not get what you think you are 
   getting in terms resources;
2. Not all proxy servers or server versions support compression perfectly, 
   older versions of Squid, for an example;
3. Most of my users are on computers with not that much power;
4. Compression makes it more difficult to trouble-shoot. I have a large user
   base, and have had experience recently of having to trouble-shoot 
   IEs with the same configuration but with success/failure of accessing
   a site with compressed content. I did not enjoy that.

Just my 2c.

Regards,


Jie

* Igor Gali?? <i....@brainsware.org> wrote:

> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 11:29:17 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Igor Gali?? <i....@brainsware.org>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Fast by default
> X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.5_GA_2213.DEBIAN5_64 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0
>  ([unknown])/6.0.5_GA_2213.DEBIAN5_64)
> 
> 
> Thanks to Covener for pointing out this thread to me.
> 
> My first thought when reading it wasn't exactly what I then found.
> 
> When thinking about ``fast by default'', I'm thinking about httpd making
> smart decisions for MPM default values, based on the number of CPU cores
> and the amount of memory available.
> 
> The idea isn't exactly new: IIS and most JEE servers for instance, spawn
> $number-of-CPU-cores threads for garbage collection.
> 
> My two cents.
> 
> -- 
> Igor Gali??
> 
> Tel: +43 (0) 699 122 96 338
> Fax: +43(0) 1 91 333 41
> Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
> URL: http://brainsware.org/
>