Perrin Harkins wrote:
Where did you see the benchmarks showing that Apache 2.0 has a better performance than 1.3? Apache 2.0 should scale better when threads are used (on platforms where threads are faster than processes) and it's definitely a must for win32, but I haven't seen any numbers other than some reports to the httpd-dev list, so I don't know. Also Apache 2.0 provides features like filters, which were almost impossible with 1.3, though how things get slowed down when these are used is a question. Please notice that I'm not saying that 2.0 is slower, I'm just asking to see the numbers ;)Eric Frazier wrote:On that note, how about just using Apache2 for the proxy front end, and mod_perl /apache 1.x for the back end? I have wanted to try to avoid the thttpd stuff for images and from what I have heard about apache2 it can handle static pages a lot faster than the 1.x did.
You really should be able to get more than enough performance out of 1.x for static files, unless you are using very old hardware. We used a slim 1.x build with mod_proxy, mod_ssl, and mod_rewrite for all of our static files at eToys and it ran like a champ. It's true that both thttpd and apache 2 have better performance,
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
