Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Apache 2.0 Worth the Switch for PHP?

Posted by michael on from the play-nicely-children dept.

An anonymous reader writes "It seems like some of the members of the Apache Software Foundation are a little angry with the PHP Community because they don't recommend using Apache 2.0 with PHP. Since PHP is installed on half of all Apache servers this is a major issue for them. A number of high-profile PHP community members such as John Coggeshall and Chris Shiflett have blogged about this decision in light of a recent posting by Apache Software Foundation Member Rich Bowen which called PHP's anti-Apache2 stance FUD. Is there any real reason for the PHP community to start recommending Apache 2.0, especially when the 1.3.x series of Apache is rock solid and proven? Note Rich did later commend PHP for being a great product, so it's not all flames."

16 of 465 comments (clear)

  1. PHP used to be an ASF project by gtrubetskoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I should probably be noted that PHP used to be an official Apache Software Foundation project until it was mutually agreed to end this relationship. I have no clue as to what the underlying reasons were and as an ASF member myself would rather not speculate on this. See ASF Board Meeting Minutes for Feb 2004 (section 5.G).

    P.S. Apache 2.0 is great and there is no reason not to use it IMO.

  2. FUD in it's purest form ... by Sonic+McTails · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem that PHP can be linked against non-threadsafe libraries, and this causes issues with Apache 2 when it's using the Worker MPM. However, if PHP died and takes the thread with it Apache simple restarts it. I had Apache2 and PHP in this configuration for almost a year, and expect for threads randomly restarting because of PHP, I had no issues. If you want to solve the thread problem, change the MPM to prefork (which is the default last I looked), which emulates the Apache1 behavior, and stops that problem.

    --
    This signature was left intentionally blank.
  3. It's a threading issue by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Either PHP itself, or many PHP applications, are not written to deal with the multi-threading offered by Apache 2.0 . So, it seems, you will do best if you install one of the less optimal threading models. And then you lose much of the benefit of Apache 2.

    Apache 2 and a recent Linux kernel come pretty close to the theoretical limits of the hardware when it comes to serving static content. It just loafs along while saturating whatever net connection you give it. It's worth trying out.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:It's a threading issue by TheTomcat · · Score: 5, Informative

      All due repect (and I have a lot of it), but:
      Either PHP itself, or many PHP applications, are not written to deal with the multi-threading offered by Apache 2.0.

      That's just plain not true. The underlying threading problem has little to do with PHP, and absolutely nothing to do with PHP applications, but libraries to which PHP links (libmysqlclient, libpdf, libmcrypt, etc etc etc). It's these third-party libraries (over which the PHP developers have no control) that cause Apache2 to be unstable in the various threading modes (prefork works fine, but is just not officially supported).

      S

    2. Re:It's a threading issue by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative
      No problem with the respect, this is an area in which I don't have tremendous expertise. But I submit that if PHP itself is in charge of its interface to a non-thread-safe library, it can put a lock around calls into it - effectively single-threading each library and that would perform at least as well as going to a less efficient threading model for apache, and potentially better depending upon where contention happens. And given that this is Free Software, thread-safe successors of those libraries can be developed.

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    3. Re:It's a threading issue by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative
      It's because there are potentially random problems because of two threads writing the same data at the same time. Code that depends on the value of a global variable not changing from one line to the next might break. Imagine that you increment a variable and then assume that its value is one greater than before, but it's really two greater.

      To their defense, the PHP folks say the problem is with libraries they don't control. But there could be a thread-safe PHP interface to them.

      And I guess the bottom line is that they don't want to keep answering questions about this, so they just say don't upgrade to Apache 2.

      Me, I use Zope. I think it's always been multithreaded.

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
  4. Re:apache2 is essential for Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anybody still running Apache1 on Windows is nuts. Apache2 works way better on Windows.

    Anyone still running Windows is nuts ;)

  5. No need to switch ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I run a FreeBSD server with Apache 1.3.33 and PHP 4.3.10. When I was upgrading it a week or two ago to FreeBSD 5.3, I thought about making the switch to Apache 2.0. But then I thought ... What is that going to bring me?

    Apache 1.3 has been working flawlessly for me. Until I have a compelling need to switch to Apache 2.0, I'm not going to. I understand that there are some nifty new features in Apache 2.0, but not a single one of them is something that I want/need.

    This, I think, is the primary reason why people aren't going to Apache 2.0 in droves, not the PHP team's "FUD".

  6. I'm sorry Bruce, you'll have to come back later. by Mr+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's not nearly late enough in the thread for someone respected to post correct, non-inflamatory, rational information.

    You're going to stop all the foaming at the mouth, and who wants a half-frothed troll this close to Christmas?

    --
    Never confuse volume with power.
  7. Why are there two?? by jdavidb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can anyone point me to a succint explanation of why there have been an Apache 1.x line and an Apache 2.0 line for years? This to me has always seemed like an implicit statement from the Apache people that I should not yet move to 2.0.

    I checked the front page of Apache and there were release announcements for the latest version of both lines. Neither announcement carried a statement indicating when you should use it over the other. The front page does not appear to link to anything addressing the issue, and the FAQ does not appear to handle it, either.

    --
    Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
    1. Re:Why are there two?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      I checked the front page of Apache and there were release announcements for the latest version of both lines. Neither announcement carried a statement indicating when you should use it over the other.

      It's on the download page:

      "Apache 2.0.52 is the best available version"

      "Apache 1.3.33 is also available"

      The message would appear to be '2.0.52 is the best, but if you insist you can get a lesser version'.

    2. Re:Why are there two?? by rbowen · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's very simple. We want people to move to 2.0, but since people have not done so, we're not going to leave them high and dry.

      --
      Apache guy, Open Source enthusiast, runner
    3. Re:Why are there two?? by jdavidb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have no problem with that policy at all. But there is nothing at all on the front page to answer the question "Which Apache version should I use?" Even if the answer is not a simple "Use 2.0" or "Use 1.x," there needs to be answers to "Why would I want to use 2.0" and "Why would I want to use 1.x."

      I have been interpreting the continued maintenance of the 1.x line for years as a statement that 2.0 was not ready for prime time. I'm pretty sure this was the case at one time. The website needs to just come right out and say, "If you are starting with Apache for the first time, please use 2.0. The 1.x branch continues to be maintained for existing users who need to remain with an older version." Couldn't that at least make it to the FAQ?

      --
      Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
  8. No its not worth it, by Jason+Hood · · Score: 5, Funny


    Stick with kernel 1.3.79 and Apache 1.1 just to be "safe".

    --
    Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
  9. Re:I'm sorry Bruce, you'll have to come back later by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Funny
    It's OK because I didn't read any of the articles linked to in the Slashdot story before posting. Thus, I maintain the proper level of ignorance for Slashdot.

    On the other hand, I had looked at the problem reasonably hard when choosing supported software for UserLinux, so I did know something about the problem. So perhaps that disqualifies me.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  10. Apache Tweak. by DarkHelmet · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've been running Apache 2.0 for the past year or so, without any problems whatsoever.

    The problem is running apache in WORKER or PERCHILD MPM modes. Those are the ones that are using threading.

    What I'd recommend to anyone who wants to have a robust, fast apache implementation is to do the following:

    • Setup a version of Apache on port 80 that runs worker MPM. Use this version for serving images and html files.
    • Setup a separate version of apache (port 9000 or whatever) on prefork that runs all CGI / PHP based stuff.
    • Proxy requests matching PHP / CGI / etc to the port 9000 version of apache.

    There you go... performance increase for 75% of serving requests.

    P.S: Avoid perchild at all costs!

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i