> You are right, apache 2.0 pre fork is < apache 1.3 prefork...
Maybe. Maybe not. My 'FACT?:' header had a QUESTION MARK there.
Just in the last 4 or 5 messages on this thread the actual
reality has become even more obfuscated.
Rasmus seems to be saying it's a pig... but maybe he's
simply uncovered a serious I/O problem in mod_perl
or something other than the core itself.
Colm says the opposite.
I DON'T KNOW what the REAL story is.
Maybe nobody does. Nobody's bothered to find out for sure.
But wouldn't it be nice to know.. since this product has
more of a monopoly in it's target market than even
Microsoft does in any of theirs?
To this day ( almost 2 years after the relase of 2.0 ) no one
has done any serious benchmarking... not even Covalent.
If they have... I've never seen it. URI?
All I know is that last time I (personally) tested Apache 2.0
pre-fork against Apache 1.3 pre-fork the 'new' version was
losing hands-down as compared to the 'old' version.
'sendfile' doesn't do jack-squat for you if have a platform that
doesn't even fully support it and/or when the responses are
dynamic and not static 'files'... which is more and more the
reality these days.
Your other points are WELL TAKEN.
I don't think anyone would say that there should NOT
be an MPM for Apache.
If you have Natvie threads ( Windows ) or 3rd party threads ( UNIX )
then at least you have options.
If you have FreeBSD you are still kinda screwed but I'm sure
SOMEONE is going to fix that.
In the meantime... while all this is getting hashed out...
the subject of the thread is 'consider reopening 1.3'.
Whatever else is going on with 2.0... I say +1 to that.
Personally... I've always wondered how fast 1.3 could be
with full 'sendfile'.
Later...
Kevin
In a message dated 11/17/2003 4:09:37 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are right, apache 2.0 pre fork is < apache 1.3 prefork...
But one nice feature of apache 2.0 is to provide other mpm more powerfull.
worker mpm is > apache 1.3.
If you look all benchmark of web server, you will see that all are now
providing threaded architectures because it's more stable and faster.
Did you see all speed benchmark ? for example IIS 6 is really faster
than apache 1.3 and a bit than threaded mpm of apache 2.0.
Apache 2.0 is able to run on old plateform not using threaded mpm and
also to run "faster" on the lastest plateform using threads...
I also read here that companies prefer buy load balancer than take a
faster web server... it's right in 50% of them, but not for the 50% of
the others who want load balancer + webserver performance.
And what about companies not able to buy load balancer, running a
webserver for many services, (i think to all these companies selling
packaged and hosted webserver) and using a basic linux distribution, or
a BSD distrib ? i think they could be happy to use the real power of
threads than stay on Apache 1.3. (which one of them not want to announce
more power, and more security ?).
Apache is fighting against webserver now providing powerfull features
_ONLY_ based on threaded architectures.
And i think in the future it will be based more and more on this, if
not, why all unix kernel are working and now providing thread lib and
function more and more powerfull ???
What about all this new features in Apache 2.0 which is oriented (IMHO)
for web application, what about the security of them ? the entire and
easy control of input and output data due to filters ?
Apache 1.3 is working fine yes... but did you see all new features
provided by others webserver, based on apps, apps security, and apps speed ?
Apache 2.0 is designed to give a solid answer to this, on all actual and
future needs. it's just asking to become more and more stable.
For me, Apache 1.3 will become more and more stopped to give place to a
more powerfull solution, able to run latest applications and features.
(I am benchmarking the speed of Apache 2.0 for 1 years and an half now,
with a special and dedicated request injector architecture able to
simulate connexions, hits, auth etc...
And yes, worker mpm is faster than apache 1.3. )
In Apache 2.0 I trust :p
regards,
Matthieu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Last benchmarks I have currently are quite old.
>
> I think the last time I ( just a USER of Apache ) did
> any serious benchmarking was 2.0.40 or something...
> but the results were right inline with what Rasmus
> just posted.
>
> Apache 2.0 pre-fork was a pig compared to Apache 1.3 prefork.
>
> If I get some time off from my 'real' job in the next little while
> I will try and get you some benchmarks... but if you read my
> last message you will see that it says...
>
> > FACT?: <- That's a QUESTION MARK there.
>
> > - Verify that's it's true. ( seems to be ). You have to
> > KNOW, yourselves, where you are on the stopwatch and not
> > wait for usrs to tell you.
> > - If it's not (true)... do some marketing and make sure people KNOW IT.
> > - If it is... fix it. Make it NOT TRUE.
>
> That's kinda parta the problem right at the moment, isn't it?
>
> Apache 2.0 has been out for almost 2 years and nobody
> seems to be sure WHAT the real performance numbers are???
>
> That's just an indication of how bad the lethargy has become
> and/or how piss-poor the rollout follow-up on 2.0 has been.
>
> Later...
> Kevin
>
>
> In a message dated 11/17/2003 2:01:13 AM Central Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > ------
>> > FACT?: Apache 2.0 pre-fork ( which is the only thing still available on
>> > some of the best platforms ) is SLOWER than Apache 1.3 pre-fork.
>> > ------
>>
>> Do you have a supporting benchmark available? Benchmarking a PHP
>> script as
>> Rasmus did does not express anything about the httpd.
>>
>> Please don't continue to distribute misleading information again and
>> again
>> you know nothing about.
>>
>> nd
>
>
>
