On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 16:25, Sergey Chernyshev <sergey.chernys...@gmail.com> wrote: > This sounds scary! How do large companies enable gzip then? How many hoops > do they jump through? sounds like those hoops are in thousands! > And I don't understand how one company's setup would be different from > another still, even if situation is that bad as you describe it. > What kind of trade-offs do large companies go for when they enable gzip? > more overall traffic? no cache? > Sergey > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:17 PM, <toki...@aol.com> wrote: >> >> > There is zero reason for us to avoid putting deflate into the default >> > configuration. >> >> Sorry. There ARE (good) reasons to avoid doing so. >> >> I'm the one who wrote the FIRST mod_gzip module for Apache 1.x series >> so you would think I'd be a strong advocate of 'auto-enablement' by >> default, >> but I am NOT. There is HOMEWORK involved here and most users will get >> into deep tapioca unless they understand all the (ongoing) issues. >> >> > it is also very arguable that we should leave it off. >> >> Yes, it is. >> >> > I think others have argued well to enable it by default. >> >> Disagree. I haven't seen the 'good' argument for 'auto-enablement' yet. >> >> Some of the reasons to NOT 'go there' are coming out in other >> similar threads right now... >> >> Here's a clip from the (concurrent) message thread entitled... >> >> 'Canned deflate conf in manual - time to drop the NS4/Vary' >> >> [snip] >> >> Don't forget the ongoing issue that if you ONLY vary on 'Accept-Encoding' >> then almost ALL browsers will then refuse to cache a response entity >> LOCALLY >> and the pain factor moves directly to the Proxy/Content Server(s). >> >> If you vary on 'User-Agent' ( No longer reasonable because of the abuse >> of that header 'out there'? ) then the browsers WILL cache responses >> locally and the pain is reduced at the Proxy/Content server level, but >> pie is not free at a truck stop and there are then OTHER issues to deal >> with. >> >> The OTHER 'ongoing issue' regarding compression is that, to this day, >> it still ONLY works for a limited set of MIME types. The 'Accept-Encoding: >> gzip,deflate' >> header coming from ALL major browser is still mostly a LIE. It would seem >> to indicate that the MIME type doesn't matter and it will 'decode' for ANY >> MIME type but nothing could be further from the truth. There is no browser >> on the >> planet that will 'Accept-Encoding' for ANY/ALL mime type(s). >> >> If you are going to turn compression ON by default, without the user >> having to >> make any decisions for their particular environment, then part of the >> decision >> for the default config has to be 'Which MIME types?' text/plain and/or >> text/html only? SOME browsers can 'Accept-Encoding' on the ever-increasing >> .js Javascript backloads but some CANNOT. >> >> These 2 issues alone are probably enough to justify keeping compression >> OFF by default. A lot of people that use Apache won't even be able to get >> their heads around either one of these 'issues' and they really SHOULD >> do a little homework before turning it ON. >> >> Someone already quoted that... >> >> 'people expect the default config to just WORK without major issues'. >> >> That's exactly what you have now. >> It's not 'broken'. >> Why change it? >> >> Kevin Kiley >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org >> Sent: Tue, Jun 1, 2010 7:40 am >> Subject: Re: Fast by default >> >> Geez, Eric. No wonder people don't want to contribute to httpd, when they >> run into an attitude like yours. That dismissiveness makes me embarressed >> for our community. >> There is zero reason for us to avoid putting deflate into the default >> configuration. >> It is also very arguable that we should leave it off. I think others have >> argued well to enable it by default, while you've simply dismissed them with >> your holier-than-thou attitude and lack of any solid rationale. >> -g >> >> On May 31, 2010 8:06 PM, "Eric Covener" <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Bryan McQuade <bmcqu...@google.com> >> wrote: >> > I propose providing an... >> An additional httpd.conf doesn't sound valuable to me. What slice of >> non-savvy users would scrutinize an alternate config file, can replace >> the config file of their webserver, isn't using a webserver packaged >> by their OS, and wouldn't have just gotten the same information today >> from the manual and 400,000 other websites? >> >> There's currently no <ifModule> bloat in the default conf, but you're >> welcome to submit a patch that adds one for deflate or expires (latter >> seems more unwise to me). See the "supplemental configuration" section >> of the generated config. >> >> This doesn't address mass-vhost companies failing to allow deflate >> because it's not in the no-args HTTPD ./configure , which sounds >> far-fetched to me. I can't recall a users@ or #httpd user implying >> being subjected to such a thing with their own build or with cheap >> hosting. >> >> -- >> Eric Covener >> cove...@gmail.com >
You seem to think large corporations are competent at web design/administration. -- Sent from my toaster.
