High-End Apache

BoarderPhreak writes: "Everything Solaris today posted a follow-up to the original 'Apache: The Basics' article entitled, 'Apache: Handling Traffic' which goes into detail about various methods of load-balancing and redundancy and mentions using Rsync for replication."

Comments

No "First Post" garbage...

[embo]

For what it's worth,
I think this article is
Right on target.
Sun hardware matched
To Apache software is really a
Perfect combination
Of a great OS with
Solaris, and security with Apache
That is unmatched by any other webserver.

Broken site?

[karlbowden]

Is anybody else having trouble viewing the links above?

Re:Broken site?

[__past__]

Yes. Doesn't seem to be a good source for advice on how to run a webserver.

Re:Broken site?

[Polo]

yeah, haven't been able to view port 84 through
proxy...

Site is Fine...

[BoarderPhreak]

It's actually being served over a cable modem, using frame forwarding since my cable provider decided to block port 80 (to "protect me from Nimba) and never opened it up again... It causes problems with some firewalls or ISPs and certain versions of Netscape like that found on Linux. :(

apache is dying

[ideut]

It's a shame I suppose. This article is just a nail in the coffin showing that apache unfortunately can't keep up with the big boys. Now that the apache foundation has decided not to release Apache 2.0, I suppose we'll just have to stand aside and watch while IIS relentlessly gains market share at apache's expense. With the current apache codebase going closed-source, we'd better start trying to implement a new free web server.

Re:apache is dying

[Christopher Cashell]

Would you like to back up your statements with facts, or should I just file your post under the "useless trolling post filled with garbage passed off as facts"?

The latest Netcraft survey shows Apache having gained, with IIS having dropped slightly, and Apache is still well over 50%.

Apache 2.0 is progressing nicely, and the latest 1.3.x release was made only a few weeks ago. How exactly does that show that 2.0 isn't slated for release, and the code is going closed?

Lastly, even if your groundless statements were true, why in the world would we start over writing a web server? We've got the source for Apache, and it's a pretty slick web server. Don't you think it'd make more sense to continue it's development, forked if needed (which isn't needed)?

Bah.

Re:apache is dying

[BoarderPhreak]

Well said. Thanks. :)

Apache dying? Sheesh.

Re:apache is dying

[ideut]

Apache dying? Sheesh.

Apache *is* dying

Re:apache is dying

[BoarderPhreak]

Apache is seriously behind the times with their 2.x release - I agree. While it's definitely "slipping" I wouldn't say it's "dying."

The Apache group is great and all, but they really need to get off their collective asses and get 2.x finished, in my ever-so-humble opinion.

Re:apache is dying

[Christopher Cashell]

You know, the first time you state something as fact without backing it up can be forgiven as accident, ignorance, or lack of understanding that you will be taken more seriously if you can provide any sort of evidence for your arguments.

The second time you do it, after having had evidence requested of you, and failing to provide it, labels you without a doubt as a troll, and a waste of time.

Re:apache is dying

[ideut]

Look, I can see where you're coming from, but I still stand by point, which is:

Apache is dying

I look forward to your reply.

Re:apache is dying

[Christopher Cashell]

Why do you look forward to my reply? You've given me nothing to reply to.

So far, you've done absolutely nothing to back up your claim that "apache is dying". Until you provide some sort of evidence or proof, all you're doing is spouting an unsupported opinion.

Try making an informed argument, including some support for it, and I'll reply. Until then, I'm done with this thread.

YHBT

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you all for making trolling worth while. It's people like you that make me do it. Again, thank you.

Using Apache to replace IIS

[Mytho-X]

Anyone have experience in replacing IIS with apache on an MS Exchange server? I want to know if Apache can be used and still run Outlook Web Access (possibly with ChiliSoft for ASP)?

Please email me off list (Mytho_X.NOSPAM@pacbell.net) Remove .NOSPAM to email me.

/. Effect

[NWT]

Hah, somehow useful article for sites being slashdotted!

If only the bandwidth problems were solved :-/

a bit thin

[moore234]

This was an interesting article, but was definitely an intro piece. Just saying that rsync helps with replication doesn't really cover everything (is it peer-to-peer, or master-slave? do you run it as the web server user, or a different user? etc).

I did like the differentiation between load balancing (between machines doing the same tasks) and load sharing (for machines that had task differentiation).

Dan

Re:a bit thin

[BoarderPhreak]

Thanks, Dan - yes it is meant as more of an intro, at least initially. More detail and content will probably be added from time to time. As for rsync, there's a separate article about that - see the link in the article leading to "A Tutorial on Using Rsync." There's also some additional information that is apropos in the "Providing Core Customer Services" article.

Rsync

[$beirdo]

Rsync for replication is definitely a great strategy. It's efficient, it's flawless, it tunnels over ssh, and it's totally painless. Is there any other way to do it?

... Having trouble accessing the site.

Re:Rsync

[Anonymous Coward]

You could use OpenAFS and have all of your web content in replicated read-only volumes. Two advantages: atomic update of content once y ou release the replicated content as well as increased security if you give the Apache server AFS credentials.

Lots of cool things you can do with OpenAFS....