Slashdot Mirror
Apache Server Nears 2.0
An Anonymous Coward writes: "The Apache httpd project has released a new beta of their apache 2.0 server (v32)". For those who have not been following the 2.0 development, this is the third beta that has been produced. The new version of Apache sports the new APR API and a new method for filtered I/O, and has been rewritten to make use of a hybrid thread/process model. With Covalent already selling a commercial version of 2.0, hopefully we will see a full release of the open source version in the near future.
So it's even more efficient at reading a file off a disk and shooting it out on port 80?
Really, aren't we to the point where the only thing we can get is more bloated and less efficient? Is there ever a point when software is "finished", in the open source world? Have we fallen victim to constant tinkering just because we can?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Isn't Covalent selling an 'Apache 2.0' product? Does anyone have any experience with it?
I'd like to know the changes between their version and the 'official' version. It'd be interesting to note which features/bugfixes the Apache Foundation felt was worth waiting for.
The main benefit of Apache in the first place is the stability benefited from the fork() nature of it.
:)
:)
:)
Apache 2.0 brings some nice and intresting new features that only a multithreaded server can bring, but these are all features already available in tons of other web servers..
Unfortuantly, the programmers working on Apache 2.0 don't know how to write thread safe code. Don't believe me? Go get the source yourself, cuddle up to a posix threading book and pull out a 100% correct threading library. (Like the FreeBSD one.)
Example... DONT USE SLEEP(3) in a multithreaded application!.. but whatever
What I am basically saying is.. I would't get apache 2.0 for production _yet_. Someday Apache 2.0 will be the model for how a stable multithreaded multi-protocol server can be written.
By the way, I normally don't take time out to actually post. But since my moderation and meta moderation privs were removed since i moderated a post I found intresting.. to be intresting. (The great slashdot troll investigation). About 500 people lost their moderation ability at that time. What a nice brave new world.
The advance is. I can now say what I truely feel and not care about karma.. because this place is a joke.
Personally, I don't mind waiting on the Apache project to take their time and do it right. I believe 2.0 isn't bloatware, but a far more modular and extensible version of the worlds fav. web server. Personally I've been waiting for a WHILE to start using it. I'm not sure if PHP4 will compile against it yet. Maybe out of CVS it will.
With the new threading, it should manage to push out pages a lot faster under load, and make better use of the processors. Might have to go download today. Here's a project for those of you bleeding edgers out there. I've yet to manage this one myself:
Apache 2.0 + mod_perl + php4 (with support for MySQL 4.x) + mod_ssl.
I don't think non-CVS PHP4 will handle MySQL 4.x, but perhaps there are others that know how.
Back to topic, way to go guys!!
-What have you contributed lately?
Many sites use Apache as an application server or to serve dynamic-content; e.g., by using mod_perl (to deliver blazingly-fast dynamic content generated by Perl scripts), or as a flexible and solid front-end to Java servlet engines like JServ and Tomcat.
And far from being bloatware, Apache has (at least during 1.*) gotten more modularized over time, making it easier to fine-tune logging, access control, URL rewriting, etc, etc. I don't know squat about 2.x, but I expect good things.
Just the $0.02 of a Perl/Java hacker who uses it extensively...
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
I've been using Apache 2 on Linux and FreeBSD for about 2 months now (got into it while playing around with Subversion, another project that seems to be making excellent progress), and IMHO it is really going to rock the server world. Some major plusses:
People have been complaining that Apache 2 is slow to come out, but from what I've seen lurking on the mailing list, it's because they want to ensure the quality of this release. They've also been talking about how they want a lot of beta testers, because (<rumor mode on>)they want to release soon, maybe even from 2.0.32. So get out there and beta test it!
---
Have you crashed Windows XP with a simple printf recently? Try it!
This is usually the case when you are serving static pages for a page that is viewed one time a day.
However, it gets complicated when you serve pages that are dynamically generated for various users. You want to be able to pass content of a file through various modules. You can tell that you want the page to go through mod_perl and then through SSL modules. You can also stack any modules in between.
The new version makes it easy.
Of course there is a lot of other things besides the "reading and shooting" files (IPv6, web caching, etc).
Sorry, But I will be sticking with IIS for serving web pages. I mean if not for recovering from crashes and constantly applying patches what work would I have. People might think my job is redundant. ;-)
I've been following performance results for 2.0, and wanted to let folks know that it doesn't seem clear to me that there is this huge performance gain waiting to happen.
l has some 2.x v. 1.x results.
http://webperf.org/a2/v29/Apache2_26-Nov-2001.htm
Love to hear the lowdown on performance advantages of the new Apache from someone in the know or someone who has done some actual testing.
Also, PHP/Apache perl/Apache integration are probably very high on many folks lists, what is the status of those two vis a vis apache?
I'm not that much of a linux guy, but I love apache, it is the best server software ever (under linux, of course)!
What's with all the griping about how bloated and bad apache is, then how great IIS is, and how a web server should just read and write?
Is this item being taken over by Microsoft?
Everyone, download it and try it for yourself. It's really cool.
Whenever there's a new Apache build (for Windows, too; this is uncharacteristic of Slashdot), it seems to deserve being posted on the front page.
Slashdot editors: I doubt you are in requirement of being reminded that infinitely more informative stories are forced to lurk in the dungeon known as "that subject's section." I (and probably a great number of Slashdot readers) would be greatly appreciative if you'd leave Apache propaganda (and other inane 'stories') in their respective areas and move those underrated gems to the front page. Thank you.
Do you like German cars?
First off, I have to rant about how much I love their precompiled MSI builds. Convincing my boss that installing a webserver to replace IIS would be easy was about 3 million times earlier with that... run it, click thru the wizard, once-over the config file and you're up. Now you, too, can escape the IIS headaches in less than five minutes!
With that said, has anyone tried the MSI for this latest beta? It didn't create the service for me automatically, and I wasn't sure if it was just my crackpipe or if it was an actual problem. Bug report's been filed already, just wanted to see if anyone else had any input...
---
"how can the same street intersect with itself? i must be at the nexus of the universe!" - cosmo kramer
Guess I'll see....
Apache 2.0 is quite a bit like Linux 1.0 and, to a lesser degree, Linux 2.4.
It keeps getting closer and closer--so amazingly close--but it never seems to actually be final. It gets tweaked and patched and asymptotically approaches 2.0, but doesn't seem to get there.
I'm not bashing the Apache developers, quite the opposite as I am very happy that they are absolutely not releasing it until it is ready--and we all know (I hope) that Linux 1.0 was eventually released. And 2.4. If only some other server apps used were put under such intense scrutiny before release.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
The answer to that question is, dynamic transactions often access existing databases, which often have screwed up data models and require insert/updates in multiple tables. Some will run and scream "horror, horror, horror," but now that the .bomb blew up, more and more web developers are finding they have to work with bad, inefficient, poorly documented data models. Having multi-threading in Apache will improve it's scalability.
Reading through the changes from 1.3 to 2.0, I'd say they've put quite a bit of effort into improving win32 performance (multiprocessing, finally! among others).
kudos.
Michael C. Hollinger
-flame- -flame- -flame- OK, I was just kidding. I love PostgreSQL, but even I realize that when you don't need stability, speed, good SQL compliance or ... what was I saying again?
-flame- -flame- -flame-
Alright, back on topic, I'm pretty sure that you've been able to compile PHP4 for Apache 2.0 for quite a while now (at least the option has been there - maybe it's been broken?).
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these! w00t!
From IBM... Apache V2.0 is the newly rearchitected open source Apache Web server that offers several significant enhancements, including a new "Thread-per-Request" model on UNIX and Linux operating systems. This new model offers increased performance and a significant reduction in the memory footprint of the server. On the Windows operating systems, it offers increased performance, along with capabilities and functionality that closely match those on the UNIX platform. The full information can be found here
hack the apache source to call your
c functions. Perl is a scripting language;
i.e. slow.
You can get it up and running on a port other
than 80. For example, use 8080. Demonstate
that it's easy to use and configurable and easy
to support. Then pull the plug on IIS and
and change the apache config to port 80.
Easy stuff.
It's PHP and not Apache that is the bottleneck here. For instance, I am writing a PHP extension that not only makes reading and writing XML files a doddle (eg to change (hypothetical) Apache xml config: xml_load("httpd.conf); xml_setelement("server.listen.ip", "127.0.0.1"); xml_output("httpd.conf");) but it will cache the XML files too. This means I can load config files at the start of my script with nearly no overhead. It's also going to drop the database load for an online book retailer client of mine to near zero, but that's another story... If anyone is interested in this please use ptemple[at]progressivepublishing.com instead of my Slashdot-reg Hotmail address.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
The API's are not yet fixed, so they tend to break. You can probably compile CVS of PHP to the current beta Apache 2, but the next time they change something PHP will most likely track the CVS change, leaving the beta out in the cold again.
I managed to get mod_php + Apache 2b28 coexisting, but it liked to segfault a lot (even when idle) and always ended up eating 100% CPU. I even managed to add Zend 2 (next-gen PHP engine) to the mix, but, well, I haven't seen Apache fall over so much since I got PHP 4.0.0 to generate 50,000 internal errors on a single script.
I've been looking forward to the perchild MPM. It can run different server processes under different UID/GIDs. This is important because mod_{perl,php,python,snake} run in-process with the Apache server. It's the only way to run them securely for different people other than a completely seperate webserver for each person (with its own IP address, configuration file, memory footprint, etc.)
But perchild doesn't really work:
So, Apache 2.0 may be promising in the future...but when a feature I've been looking forward to for a long time is broken, I'm kind of disappointed.
IOW, don't hold your breath waiting for the non-beta release of 2.0.
A lawyer & digital forensics examiner. Also an expert on open source software (OSS).
You may not lose a lot unless the editors read it.
:)
They have little to no patience for slashdot quirkiness and will nuke your mod ability and your karma if they don't like what you are posting. This is a new thing, though they updated the FAQ so it is now by the book as well in the future.
Folks have started posting as AC's, but it seems a logical next step will be for them to start logging your id/ip and revoking based on that. What you won't do for others seeking power you will do if you seek it
Kinda sad to see the old slashdot going away, but everything has it's time. Hoping to get a chance to use my mod/meta-mod on a similar thread in the future. Fun, quirky, good enough to make all of us in front of a computer laugh a little.
Exactly - Slashdot as we "knew" it is gone. I suppose I can't blame Rob, I'd be going nuts working on the same project for as long as he has. It doesn't matter if you post AC or not, they do log your IP. My previous post already has 5 mods done to it, I don't really care anymore.. I'm at my karma cap, let them kill it and nuke me. I don't care. I've been reading slashdot since before there were user accounts, and I've made mostly helpful contributions to the signal. I post when something I want to talk about comes up.
:)
The issue is moot at this point, but it's interested to see the feelings that still persist.
I've found FortKnox has a great journal - and he's setup his own site but I can't remember the URL and I'm too lazy/tired to look it up. Oops.. there goes more kkarma
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
I still wonder why Apache 2.0 was designed to use a strange hybrid model instead of making a non-forking server, just like thttpd, webfs or zeus, whoose performance will probably still kick Apache.
And Apache still doesn't have any integrated web administration front-end like Zeus.
{{.sig}}
The website for the APR says this:
The mission of the Apache Portable Runtime (APR) is to provide a free library of C data structures and routines, forming a system portability layer to as many operating systems as possible
What is the difference between this and the glib library which the GNOME programs use? This seems like the same kind of thing. Granted, it does seem to include some extra stuff which glib doesnt have, but still..
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
You can see an example of a multithreaded web server using a similar portability library on .
I remember showing this web server and its multithreaded / portability model to the IBM Apache team in December 1999 during the Bazaar at New York. Maybe they got some inspiration from it.
My blog
Before you graduate, be sure to catch up on the industry literature for valuble insights into how the real world works.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. Pay special attention to what happens to Asok, and lean how to duck.
being able to plug in your domain SAM, with acls on the site. Also domain authentication with "web folders" (DAV) is another. Note: I will be happy to be corrected with a HOWTO that tells you how to point DAV at your PDC or SAMBA box here ... (without running a separate accounts database)
Wouldn't you rather see the thing actually improve, than just see it get a release label?
Ok, so maybe this is not the place for this, but I can't seem to get any answers out of the developers about this. ./configure still doesn't work.
./configure --enable-layout=opt. No dice - it still throws everything in /usr/local/apache2.
I downloaded 2.0.28 in December and tried to
I posted to the apache-users mailing list in December, and no one responded. I tried again yesterday, with 2.0.32, and it still doesn't work.
Looking through the bug tracking list, I can see that this bug has been filed since November 2001.
How can Apache 2 be nearing release if you still can't get it to install where you want it to?
You do realise that this means that the Perl processes have no idea of the remote IP? or of the SSL connection information?
A second apache also requires a second set of configuration files and virtual servers which have to be maintained and provisioned. It's just a waste of time, although it does reduce the stupid memory requirements somewhat...
... give it to me instead :)
fuck you, niggers!
test