William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote on 2008年8月22日 9:03:
Which brings me to the other half of [community], I'm proposing we hold
an Apache httpd {next} barcamp session for the community who are at
ApacheCon BarCamp on Tuesday to learn about what has changed, what might
change, and perhaps if we get enough
Jorge Schrauwen wrote on Sunday, September 14, 2008 7:47 PM
This is no true. The latest version I've been able to compile was 2.2.9
http://www.blackdot.be/?inc=apache/binaries
You are however correct that it's getting more cumbersome! Vista + VS
2005/2008 is a no go. I'm using a XP x64
Bing Swen wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote on 2008年8月22日 9:03:
Which brings me to the other half of [community], I'm proposing we hold
an Apache httpd {next} barcamp session for the community who are at
ApacheCon BarCamp on Tuesday to learn about what has changed, what might
change, and
(Speaking of pet peeves -- why does Apache handle so many things
besides HTTP, and yet I have to get other servers to handle certain
kinds of HTTP requests because Apache doesn't handle it well?)
100K concurrent requests, kept open.
Our latest builds, on some fairly modest hardware, are actually about twice
as fast as numbers I posted last time async-vs-threads came up. Apache
can very easily fill multiple gigE interfaces on modest hardware. We can
sustain about 45k requests/sec on our build on a dual dual-core system
Akins, Brian wrote on 2008年9月3日 7:54
Egads, no wonder they got such horrible performance. Worker (or event,
maybe) seems to be the best way to go, at least based on our testing.
Yes, Worker can work much better, but seems to be basically the same order
of magnitute as threads on Windows
On 9/4/08 4:22 AM, Bing Swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you have super-optimized
hardware and system?
Nope, standard off the shelf systems.
So I wonder perhaps next time you guys may bother to take time to also run
Nginx on your platform and tell us how it performs against your httpd
On 9/4/08 2:54 AM, steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Filling gigE and requests/sec aren't targets that concern me as a
user. They sound like nice beanchmarks though...
To some folks, filling a gigE is important. FWIW, I ran some tests
yesterday with about 50K ISDN (384K) speed clients and httpd
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
bill stoddard wrote:
I completely agree, it's not a slam-dunk conclusion that async/event
driven connection management in an http server is clearly superior.
However, Bing mentioned Windows... Apache on Windows is not a stellar
performer, especially compared to a
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 9/2/08 3:15 PM, bing swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems the test (done by another guy) indeed used an everything plus the
kitchen sink default Apache httpd at first, but then dropping off 3/4 of
all of the default modules (maybe not that much, but only for serving
On 9/1/08 8:11 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 31, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Bing Swen wrote:
To my knowledge, the one thread per connection network i/o model
is a
suboptimal use
threads vs. events is certainly not, imo, a finalized debate
yet with a known winner or
Akins, Brian wrote on Tuesday, September 02, 2008 11:31 PM:
sustain about 45k requests/sec on our build on a dual dual-core system
with
a network card that supports Linux NAPI (that made a huge difference).
Without much tuning 35k is pretty easy. (Note: this was very small files,
bcs it's so
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 9/1/08 8:11 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 31, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Bing Swen wrote:
To my knowledge, the one thread per connection network i/o model
is a
suboptimal use
threads vs. events is certainly not, imo, a finalized debate
yet
On 9/2/08 1:02 PM, bing swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a little different viewpoint. According to some recent test reports
comparing Apache 2.2 and Nginx 0.6/0.7 (from a blog website admin.), Apache
could do as well as Nginx when there are a few connections each of which
carries many
Akins, Brian wrote on Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:07 AM
I saw this comparison somewhere. It just does not seem to match what I
have
seen. Our little ole website has been known to take a few connections
from
slow clients, but we have not really seen this slow down. I'd like to see
more
bill stoddard wrote:
I completely agree, it's not a slam-dunk conclusion that async/event
driven connection management in an http server is clearly superior.
However, Bing mentioned Windows... Apache on Windows is not a stellar
performer, especially compared to a server that fully exploits
On 9/2/08 3:15 PM, bing swen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems the test (done by another guy) indeed used an everything plus the
kitchen sink default Apache httpd at first, but then dropping off 3/4 of
all of the default modules (maybe not that much, but only for serving
static pages) seemed
Bing Swen wrote:
Although Apache is famous for its modular design and configuration
flexibility, it seems
these new comers are challenging the relevance of Apache in real use. Is
there any
chance for Apache to get much better performance while retaining its design
beauty?
No, and yes.
No,
On Aug 31, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Bing Swen wrote:
To my knowledge, the one thread per connection network i/o model
is a
suboptimal use
threads vs. events is certainly not, imo, a finalized debate
yet with a known winner or loser. Maybe 5-10 years ago events
had a clear advantage but today
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 31, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Bing Swen wrote:
To my knowledge, the one thread per connection network i/o model is a
suboptimal use
threads vs. events is certainly not, imo, a finalized debate
yet with a known winner or loser. Maybe 5-10 years ago events
had a clear
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Which brings me to the other half of [community], I'm proposing we hold
an Apache httpd {next} barcamp session for the community who are at
ApacheCon BarCamp on Tuesday to learn about what has changed, what might
change, and perhaps if we get enough folks to express
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Thoughts?
I think doing *something* is good.
I'm not sure tagging 2.3.0 or having another Apache 3.0 D {ream} session
is the right thing
Right now we just need someone to write lots of code and get us started.
/imo.
Having said that, I would he happy to
On 08/22/2008 03:03 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'm thinking of tagging 2.3.0 alpha a month before we gather in New Orleans
for ApacheCon 2008/US http://us.apachecon.com/c/acus2008/ so that we can
begin to gather community feedback and actually /do/ something about it at
the hackathon.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/22/2008 03:03 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'm thinking of tagging 2.3.0 alpha a month before we gather in New Orleans
for ApacheCon 2008/US http://us.apachecon.com/c/acus2008/ so that we can
begin to gather community feedback and actually /do/ something about
I'm thinking of tagging 2.3.0 alpha a month before we gather in New Orleans
for ApacheCon 2008/US http://us.apachecon.com/c/acus2008/ so that we can
begin to gather community feedback and actually /do/ something about it at
the hackathon.
Ok, I'm using 'we' sort of liberally, I'm training a day
25 matches
Mail list logo
