Apache 2.0 Goes Gold!

The Apache Software Foundation's Apache HTTP Server, version 2.0.35, has now been released for General Availability. You can find the official announcement, and download the server, from their website. Be sure to try a mirror first. Congratulations to the HTTP Server Project for getting the final release out. If you are wondering about it being usable in a production environment, you should poke around Slashdot's servers and see if you are surprised (now if only mod_perl was finished we could move more of our servers over to using the new release).

The HTTP Server Project is now recommending this release for use on production websites. 2.0.35 is now considered their best release and should be used in preference to all older versions (including the 1.3 series). A few of the new features are:

• higher performance over 1.3
• multiple operational models: threaded, hybrid multi-processes and multi-threaded
• specific request processing for Windows, Netware, BeOS, and OS/2
• integrated SSL and WebDAV support
• improved HTTP proxy support
• I/O layering and filtering

Re:Better performance?

[CrimsonDeath]

The fact that the poll you mention is the 'article poll' for the article that you mentioned probably has something to do with it.

Just pointing out the obvious...

Re:I'll poke...

[Raetsel]

Poke some more, you quit too soon.

• GET /article.pl?sid=02/04/06/0216250 HTTP/1.1
• HTTP/1.1 200 OK
  Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) mod_perl/1.25 mod_gzip/1.3.19.1a
  X-Powered-By: Slash 2.003000
  X-Fry: Where's Captain Bender? Off catastrophizing some other planet?

• GET /Slashdot/pc.gif?article,1018062768900 HTTP/1.1
• HTTP/1.1 200 OK
  Server: Apache/1.3.17 (Unix)

• GET /banner/cdig0001en.gif?1018062768915 HTTP/1.1
• HTTP/1.1 200 OK
  Server: Apache/2.0.35 (Unix)

Well, there's the first one at least. Looks like their banner ad server's on 2.0+. I don't feel like formatting the rest of the logfile, but there are a couple more in there.

comments split?

[(startx)]

It appears as if the comments for the story and the poll are the same comments. wierd. anyway, It seems I'm not the only one who has rooted coybow neal's box...

It would appear...

[Anonymous Coward]

That apache.org itself is still on 2.0.32

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?mode_u=off& mo de_w=on&site=apache.org

recent benchmarks?

[green pizza]

I'm curious as to how Apache 2.0 stacks up against Apache 1.3, as well as recent versions of iPlanet and Zeus. A quick web and usenet search via google found gobs of benchmark results, none of which were newer than about 8 months. Anyone have some links to modern bechmark results... or a pointer to a "good" opensource httpd benchmark tool (or anything other than SPECweb99)?

Re:Windows XP

[cliffwoolley]

I'm pretty sure the answer is still "yes." Though I believe there's a hotfix from MS available for XP that fixes the problem. Have a look at this page, which explains the issue: http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/#x pbug and points you at the corresponding MSKB article.

Re: Ad servers

[Raetsel]

ABORT, ABORT!!!

Whoa there, cowboy. Slow down a bit.

"These slimeballs" don't even come into play here. Slashdot is hosting its' own ads (in this case), so your spleen-venting is rather unfair. Half of what you're demanding they do, they already do! (And if they're willing to accept credit cards directly, or let me mail them a check, I'll subscribe -- I won't deal with PayPal. There is that point.)

Now, back on target... The addresses I posted were all requests from the slashdot.org domain. The log was from my proxy -- which drops all communication with Doubleclick.

It's easy to check, just make the request to images.slashdot.org [slashdot.org] -- it's the California Digital ad about their acquisition of VA Linux's servers "...blue lights and all." The interesting thing is that you can see the load balancing in action. I received responses from "Apache/1.3.12" and "Apache/2.0.35" (same content, different server!) -- keep hitting 'reload', you'll see it.

Final note... I switched off my denial function and took a look at Doubleclick -- both their .com domain and clients that serve from their .net ad servers. Yes the 'Great Satan' is joined at the hip with Lucifer himself (at least from what I'm told here). They're running Internet Information Server, both v4 and v5.

Where do they recommend to use 2.0 over 1.3.24?

[pwagland]

httpd.apache.org [apache.org] has this to say: (my emphasis)

Apache 1.3.24 is the best version of Apache currently available; everyone running 1.2.X servers or earlier are strongly urged to upgrade to 1.3, as there will not be any further 1.2.X releases. At present, the Win32 port of Apache is not as stable as the UNIX version.

and also

Apache 2.0 offers numerous enhancements, improvements and performance boosts over the 1.3 codebase

But nowhere do they actually say that 2.0.35 is their best release. At least not yet, maybe they will change their website in the future....

Kiwi filesystem?

[KjetilK]

integrated SSL and WebDAV support

WebDAV seems great when you try to work with larger groups. While I do OK with FTP and similar stuff, I think it would be a nice feature to be able to mount a remote WebDAV directory, and it seems like this is available in the form of Kiwi Filesystem [stanford.edu]

Does anybody have any experience with this software? Has it been included in any distros?

Roxen

[Trevin]

I've managed Apache at work, and Roxen [roxen.com] at home. I still can't say whether one is better than the other, but I do like those RXML tags, so I'm sticking with Roxen for now.

Re:Better performance?

[jellomizer]

Well I decided to give a quick speed test. This is not scienctific Data I bet there are flaws in my testing and it is NOT REAL WORLD APPS. But my Test gave the results that Apache 2 is about 13% faster then 1.3.

This is what I did. On a Sun Ultra 10 I installed Apache 1.3 and 2.0 (Latest of both and compiled them using the same compilers)
port 80 was Apache 2.0
port 8080 was Apache 1.3

Then I used Lynx -dump http://localhost:0080 > /dev/null

and recorded the time it would take to do 3000 connections

then I did the same but on port 8080

and recorded the time

it took 2.28 for apache 2
2.63 for apache 1.3

so 2.0 is roughly 13% faster.

This was testing 1 connection at a time not multable connections.

Re:Kiwi filesystem?

[Whyzzi]

No experience with Kiwi, or even WebDAV on Apache, But I am using WebDAV on IIS 5 (Windows 2000 Server) to update my site using MacroMedia Dream Weaver UltraDev 4. WebDAV is a nice feature to have if your website is not database backed. Setup and security is straightforward as well.

Re:Playing it smart

[Anonymous Coward]

"critical bugfix" version 7.2.1 - see postgresql.org for the dl.

Seems if the db crashed, counters started running backwards. I suspect there were some other things that went goofy in normal operation too, I had some general weirdness going on. 7.2.1 seems to be working fine, a lot of little glitches that were occurring on the website it powers have magicly gone away since the fix. It's still my favorite db, and the price is right, so I'm not bitching about the bugs, just that I wasn't smart enough to wait for the dot-one version. Congrats and thanks to the PostgreSQL guys for giving us a kick-ass heavy-duty db solution. And the Apache guys too, but I'm still gonna hold out for dot-one.

Error when building on Solaris 8

[Isaac-Lew]

Ok, apparently I'm having a problem building apache on Solaris 8:

In file included from /home/isaac/httpd-2.0.35/srclib/apr/atomic/so laris_sparc/apr_atomic_sparc.s:63: /usr/include/sy s/asm_linkage.h:104: `#' operator should be followed by a macro argument name

(Repeats for several different lines)

/home/isaac/httpd-2.0.35/srclib/apr/atomic/solari s_sparc/apr_atomic_sparc.s:113: unterminated character constant

Looks like possibly a broken include file on Solaris, any ideas?