Interesting question. I have just done a large scale review of our web server architecture and have recommended a move to 2.0. There were a number of factors for not moving, both specific to our installation as well as in general. In general :
Remeber the old adage "If it is not broke, do not fix it". The 1.3 series is still an amazing piece of software. Specifically, the arguements against moving in our case : mod_auth_oracle has not been ported to 2.0. One module I wrote would have to be redone for 2.0. This module gave us a 60% performance boost on our request latency time and has to be in any installation. I made changes to the 1.3 proxy code which I do not look forward to changing in 2.0. Due to our hardware architecture (IBM BladeCenter and Linux) scalability was not an issue. What won me over? Load balancing and fail over proposals in mod_proxy for the 2.2 series. As I am moving to a new hardware platform in December, I felt it best to bite the bullet to 2.0 now. Performance wise I noticed little difference between the two using prefork MPM. With the bladecenter there was no requirement for scalability. Thats about it. BTW if it makes a difference,this Apache installation is nothing more than a central HTTP hub for proxying to mutliple back end servers. Jeffrey Burgoyne Chief Technology Architect KCSI Keenuh Consulting Services Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi all, > > > > I've been keen to do some digging for reasons why someone might need to > > install httpd v1.3 instead of v2.0 or later. > > > > Support for mod_backhand seems to be a significant reason (and getting > > backhand ported to v2.0 would be a win): Apart from backhand, are there > > in the experience of the people on this list any other significant apps > > out there that are keeping people from deploying httpd v2.x? > > > > Regards, > > Graham
