Jorge Schrauwen wrote: > > So is there any time frame for official binaries to be released in > 64-bit? the 2.2 tree seems to compile fine without any problems. I > know there is no noticeable speed improvement only a slight memory > usage increase. But there does seem to be a demand for it.
Yup. Most folks see they are on a 64 bit system and assume a 64 bit binary is a win. Of course, this is true if you want a massively cached server running a memcache type solution instead of disk-cached. Otherwise? It's not likely to be a huge win. Can they be offered now? Sure, I'd build the most modern 2.2.x flavors as a 64 bit binary, but of course that means all the dependencies as well. And confusion will undoubtedly result, from loading 32 bit builds of third party modules, etc. One major issue is; http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/archive/1/459847/100/0/threaded where MS's response was entirely unsatisfactory w.r.t. POSIX compliance. > I'm getting that question more and more (2-3x per month now)... and I > don't want to be held reliable when someone does use it in a > production environment and loses data due to it and blames me for his > loss. Likewise, all ASF committers can post binaries, but we don't accept external binaries due to a similar sense-of-risk. > (Or should I just add a disclaimer? if so what should it state to be > on the safe side?) Definitely highlight the Apache License 2.0 (including it's disclaimer of warranty clause.) It isn't an absolute shield, but it is very important that they pay attention to it. Perhaps if they want support, places such as (disclaimer: my employer) www.covalent.net or similar commercial offerings which include Apache httpd would provide the warranty they expect for hosting a production system. Bill
