I completely understand your point. Some people feel they need those extra 10% for production machines. But are you actually planning on running Apache 2 on a heavily loaded production machine? If yes, I think it might still be a bit early to abandon 1.3.x. If no and you just want to mess around with it and test it, then you can use apxs for a while ;)
Andi At 05:30 PM 2/25/2002 -0800, August wrote: >Hey Yasuo, > >Could you give a complete url to the DSO recommendation? Most >instructions on creating a high performance version of php recommend >static compiles. > >Thanks... > >- AZ > >-----Original Message----- >From: Yasuo Ohgaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >August wrote: > > Sebastian wrote: > >>if PHP's --with-apache option needs tweaking. Why don't you use DSO > >>anyhow? It's the preferred method. > >> > > > > Why in the world is DSO the preferred method? Is this documented > > somewhere? > >In apache document. > > > > > I find DSO useful for testing and development, but for deployment it > > makes little sense to be using DSO, the cost of 60 seconds of compile > > is negligible when looking at something that will be installed for > > timeframes exceeding a day or two, especially for larger server farms. > >The benefit of DSO is loading modules without compile whole apache. > >For instance, I would like to use info or status module when >I have problem with my web servers, but I don't want to enable them all >the time. > >-- >Yasuo Ohgaki > > >_________________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > >-- >PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
