Slashdot Mirror
Apache 2.2.0 Released
ikewillis writes "According to an announcement on apache.org, Apache 2.2.0 has been released. From the announcement: 'This version of Apache is a major release and the start of a new stable branch. New features include Smart Filtering, Improved Caching, AJP Proxy, Proxy Load Balancing, Graceful Shutdown support, Large File Support, the Event MPM, and refactored Authentication/Authorization.' View the ChangeLog or check out the new feature list."
I'm waiting for Microsoft to rename IIS "Cowboy 1.0" :)
I read the feature list and changelog earlier today but without taking the time to set up a test server and experiment with it I really have no idea how it compares to 1.3. For the most part we have stuck with 1.3.x for it's stability, performance on our older hardware (from 256MB dual 75MHz SPARCstation 20 to 1 GB 440 MHz Netras), and rock solid compatibility with mod_perl and Perl 5.6.
I'll be willing to try upgrading in the near future in hopes of experimenting with and making use of the some of the newer featues, but I would like to hear some first-hand information from those who have recently made the leap to 2.2, if at all possible.
You can also do this: apachectl -k restart
A round of thanks to all the hard work done by the HTTPD team.
you guys ROCK
and special thanks to paul who pushed this through!
I don't get the feeling that this is a very significant update!
any project in it's mature stages wont change much, at least not noticeable by most users.
if bash creates a new release, you aint gonna notice the difference.
if linux creates a new release, you aint gonna notice either (unless it's a major release, but in comparison, this apache release is not)
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
Since version 1.x you've been able to make config changes without a restart. Just edit your config files and then run "apachectl -k graceful" or send a USR1 kill signal to the parent Apache process. Apache reloads the config without restarting.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
That's interesting how they jumped from the 2.1.x beta versions to 2.2.0. They didn't do this when they went from the 2.0.x beta to the 2.0.x stable (hence the large .55 attached to 2.0.x right now). It's kinda like what Perl does with having devel and stable versions have odd and even numbers, respectively.
;)), I have this feeling that we might see the same 1.3->2.0 inertia.
Anyway, I guess the big question is, how many people will actually adopt 2.2.0. I still remember when 2.0 came out to mostly a yawn as most people kept using 1.3.x. Even today, most of the servers that I come across or administer are still using 1.3.x because unless you were running Windows, 2.x didn't really offer spectacular improvements over 1.3.x, and looking at the changes for 2.(1|2).x (anyone who's going to transfer a >2GB file over HTTP is crazy
I've been struggling with setting up a mirrors server for our computing club here. I'd like to mirror all of Debian, for example, but I'm finding that storing (and, worse, updating) 80 gigs only to serve a tiny fraction of the files to our users is a dismal trade-off. I had been experimenting with ProxyPass, but since it didn't cache the results locally, it wasn't really providing a speed benefit.
mod_disk_cache plus mod_proxy's ProxyPass seems like just the ticket - I could give it a few servers to proxy for, give it a few hundred gigs of cache, and it would then automatically intelligently cache for those servers. This would be a great, easy plug-in solution.
Has anyone used mod_proxy and mod_cache in this fashion? It'd be great to hear about others' experiences or configuration examples.
|/usr/games/fortune
What are the newer features that you're planning on using?
Indeed, it sounds like you have what may be the perfect situation. Even if your servers are somewhat older, and not the most powerful, they are still very solid Sun systems. They will basically last forever. You suggest that mod_perl is working very well for you at the moment, too.
Perhaps an upgrade would be the worst thing you could do. Sticking with older, proven systems is many times a very wise idea.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Storing state in the server and retrieving it via cookies, etc., is not CPS, it's just saving and retrieving state. And who still uses CGI anyway?
And who says continuations are a valid way to write web apps? I prefer to use request/response because that's the model of the underlying architecture. I also want my URLs to represent named entry points, not continuations within some arbitrary program.
And how the heck would Apache know how to save a continuation in any arbitrary programming language? Or is Apache supposed to turn into a set of libraries, one for Smalltalk, one for Ruby, one for Lisp.. ?
Explain what you mean, son....
For those of you saying you don't need to transfer >2GB it reminds me of comments like, "640k is enough for anybody", "64-bit isn't needed on the desktop", "no advantage to dual core" etc etc.
This will finally mean I can wget DVD ISO images! Work with large files over WebDAV and it will also mean my logs can grow over 2GB which is cool.
HTTP works where FTP has problems when dealing with complex networks (firewalls/NAT etc etc).
FWIW there's a debian-specific solution in the form of apt-proxy, a program that runs on your server, then the clients point their /etc/apt/sources.list at you, etc. etc. I haven't used it, but I know it exists, so your mileage may/will vary. (At my last job I was responsible for setting up a large web cluster; one machine acted as sort of the "mothership" providing all sorts of network services to the web hosts and so on... I was just looking into apt-proxy when I ended up getting a better job elsewhere. ;))
http://apt-proxy.sourceforge.net/
Yes, Squid 3.0 can handle that easily using built in config options, and squid 2.5 can handle it with an external redirector script.
this
I've used the IIS GUI once because I was curious. *shudder* GUIs are useful only when well-designed.
1/ There are Apache GUIs. Google them up. Some are free, some are not.
2/ Opening the config file in a GUI text editor and navigating around with a mouse should be fairly easy, especially with the copious amount of documenation in the config.
3/ It's very difficult to express the rich level of complexity of Apache configurations in a GUI. Just imagine how on Earth a GUI can be made to handle nested VirtualHosts, Directorys, and Files. Throw in some regexp, and suddenly, you are faced with a situation where it becomes a heck of a lot easier to just edit the config file. To say that a GUI is always easier than text is incorrect; it depends on the situation, and Apache configs are one of those situations where this is the case (kinda like how when dealing with non-photographic web graphics, you need to use PNG or GIF and avoid JPG like the plague and how when dealing with photographic web graphics, you have to use JPG... each rules over their own niche of strength).
4/ If a GUI is made, it is highly likely that it won't be as powerful as just using a text editor; it's not as expressive (see above). But there's really not much to do with the basic configuration, either. For the most part, the default configuration works just fine, and if someone needs to edit the settings, it's mostly for the complicated stuff that would be a bloody mess to do in a GUI.
5/ Compactness and portability.
There are a couple of GUI frontends for configuration available, but I don't believe this release includes one "out of the box." If you're running Apache on Windows there are a number of commercial products available for GUI configuration. There's a whole bunch of free ones for Linux/Unix, webmin being one of my favorites since it has modules for just about everything under the sun (unix users & groups, samba shares, mysql, etc.) Although I've never had much trouble editing the text conf files by hand. We have a lot of sites and virtual hosts--it was much quicker and easier to set it all up in Apache via typing and cutting and pasting the relevant bits than when we used to run IIS.
Maybe I'll try CERN httpd 2.14, I'm not sure if 3.0 has enough of a track record."
Running Debian stable, eh?
Lemon curry???
AFAIK there is 0 interest in fixing perchild in apache community. Too bad because this is the biggest disadvantage of apache. There is simply NO WAY to run vanilla apache + mod_python/mod_php/mod_perl/mod_whatever in a SECURE way in multiuser enviroment :-(
i just want to know when i'll be able to restart each vhost independently, like in IIS. or atleast have it rehash the config with out shutting the server down ( or is that already possible )?
In the mean time (ie, since the 2.0 release) we've changed the versioning model to the "odds are dev, evens are stable" model. So as soon as 2.2 released, development moved to the 2.3 branch, which will release as 2.4. So, yes, like Perl and Linux and many other things.
As for transferring >2GB files, this comes up many times every day on #apache, and fairly frequently on the mailing lists, so people do actually want to do this.
Folks that are still using 1.3 are missing out on enormous strides forward. The "it still works fine, why should I upgrade" crowd are completely welcome to remain where they are, and we're not going to compel to move, but they are going to miss out on all sorts of cool things, in the name of "it's good enough already." Their loss, not ours.
Apache guy, Open Source enthusiast, runner