Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apache Software

Apache HTTP Server 1.3.31 Released 56

Posted by michael from the nice-feather dept.
efranco writes "Apache Software Foundation had released today a new version of the 1.3.x Apache webserver branch. How long this branch will last? Despite the interesting new features introduced in the 2.0.x branch, it seems that the branch 1.3.x is still the most used around the world." Errr, is PHP playing nicely with Apache 2 yet?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apache HTTP Server 1.3.31 Released More

Apache HTTP Server 1.3.31 Released

Comments Filter:

  • Don't bother looking or anything (Score:3, Informative)

    by Oriumpor ( 446718 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @12:45PM (#9086691) Homepage Journal
    For apache 2.0, GOOGLE says it does [php.net]

    • Re:Don't bother looking or anything (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No. It says "Do not use Apache 2.0 and PHP in a production environment neither on Unix nor on Windows."

      • Re:Don't bother looking or anything (Score:4, Interesting)

        by justMichael ( 606509 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @01:29PM (#9087240) Homepage
        No. It says "Do not use Apache 2.0 and PHP in a production environment neither on Unix nor on Windows."
        That document is also almost 9 months old, to the day: Last updated: Sat, 09 Aug 2003.

        I have numerous sites running apache2 and PHP and have had no problems.

        The only issue I have is no mod_throttle, and I'm not the guy to try and port it to the 2.x API ;)

        • Re:Don't bother looking or anything (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I've had problems with Apache 2.0, mod_deflate, and PHP not playing nice, that I didn't have with 1.3 and mod_gzip in a similar setup.

          I set up mod_deflate to only handle content-types of "text/plain" and "text/html", but in a PHP message board I use that stream files(attachments) and specifies the content-type, mod_deflate compresses the content, even when it shouldn't(gzipped files, for example).

          I did implement a workaround, which involved using PHP's built-in output compression support, and only using m
          • The problem with using php and apache2 is quite simple. most of the mpms that apache2 uses (any but prefork i think) are threaded. non-threaded code doesn't play nice with threaded code. so.... The new zend stuff in php makes it completly thread safe so that works fine. The problem is that some of the modules distributed by php.net and some (maybe most) 3rd party modules are not thread-safe, and under-high load, can cause stuff to crash and what not.
            • Which ones, though? Is there a list somewhere that states which modules are currently not thread-safe? I'd like to see PHP become fully threadable and play nice with Apache2.. how many years have they had to fix that now?
        • PHP4/5 is fine to use with Apache2.0, However not all PHP extensions are thread-safe, and probably never will be. So if you use any non-default extensions, those libraries may, or may not work correctly under apache2.0
      • I ran Apache2 on my iBook for months without issues with PHP. I eventually pulled it though because performance was slower than 1.3.x.

  • 1.3.31? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by platipusrc ( 595850 )
    I generally run the latest version of major software that I use, and I use Apache's httpd. The version I'm running today is 1.3.29. Did they skip 1.3.30, or was it a silent buggy release...or is the story a typo?

  • Threads (Score:5, Informative)

    by kompiluj ( 677438 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @12:51PM (#9086765)
    Apache 2.0.x is tuned with multithreading in mind, whereas 1.3.x is not. This is root of problems with PHP which libraries are not all thread-safe. It also means that in order to fully benefit from Apache 2 you must have OS with multithreading support. Linux 2.6, FreeBSD 5-CURRENT or (cough!) MS Windows NT (2k, XP, 2003, etc.) or MacOS X (this one I'm not quite sure about - but it has Mach kernel so probably yes) or Solaris.

    • Re:Threads (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bistronaut ( 267467 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @01:11PM (#9087025) Homepage Journal

      Apache 2.x can be run in multi-threaded mode, but it can still do multiprocess just as well (if not better) than 1.3.x.

      The multi-thread capabilities of Apache 2 in no way detract from its multi-process capabilities. You can run in just multi-thread mode, just multi-process mode or any balance between the two that you want. The multi-thread capabilities were added to address performance problems on platforms that were not very efficient at spawning new processes (Windows and others).

      If there are still some PHP libraries that are not thread-safe (and you need those libraries), just don't run in multi-threaded mode. If you're on Linux, that's probably what you were doing anyway. (If you're on Windows - well, why the hell are you running a production server on Windows?)

      Of course, there are valid reasons to stick with 1.3.x. For example:

      • No real point in transitioning existing installations - 1.3.x is probably good enough that it's not worth the hassle to change to 2.x.
      • Your vendor is behind the times (I found that Debian's support for 2.x isn't as good as it is for 1.3.x yet).
      • I'm sure there is a third reason I can't remember.

      In general, I follow the "2.x is default for new installations" philosophy.

      • Re:Threads (Score:5, Informative)

        by GoRK ( 10018 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @01:51PM (#9087528) Homepage Journal
        Don't forget to add that the multithreading was also added to support easier/quicker/better data sharing among request handlers. Stuff like mod_perl is *really* taking advantage of this now. It also facilitates management of virtual hosts from both a resource and a security standpoint. You can have a seperate process for each vhost running in its own security context and resource limited (cpu, bandwidth, etc.) easily and then configure per-process thread/request limits for each virtual host.

        Debian (testing/unstable) support for 2.0 is as good as any distro's IMO, but of course there is little to no support for it 'out of the box' on woody, and unless you go for backports.org stuff, it's kind of hard to trust some of the 3rd party deb repositories for this kind of thing.. So still it's a problem with Debian, but nothing other than what has plagued debian for all time -- releases that are actually too infrequent.
        • Debian (testing/unstable) support for 2.0 is as good as any distro's IMO,

          Werd. I am using Apache2 w/ mod_perl2, PHP, and ASP (which relies on mod_perl). Works great!

      • Re:Threads (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Third reason: a lot of modules (mod_perl, mod_php, others) haven't been updated to "production quality" for apache2.

        mod_perl is still 1.99_something (beta), and has been for a while. A lot of projects (Mason, Bricolage, etc.) and modules need to be ported forward and thoroughly vetted. A lot of things have changed under the hood, and tons of new things are possible, but it's most of it is under development or in "beta".

      • Re:Threads (Score:3, Informative)

        by Electrum ( 94638 )
        If there are still some PHP libraries that are not thread-safe (and you need those libraries), just don't run in multi-threaded mode.

        Or use FastCGI.

  • PHP? (Score:2)

    by brunson ( 91995 ) *
    I've been using PHP with Apache2 for months now.

    • Re:PHP? (Score:1, Redundant)

      by bzant ( 256795 )
      I agree, I am using 2.0.x with PHP 4.3.4 and MySQL 4.1 and have seen no problems. Now my apps are pretty basic so that might be why it all runs, but has been solid for 5 months now.
      • In terms of instability and such, I'd be far more worried about MySQL 4.1 than Apache 2 - especially as the compatibility issues haven't been completely nailed out (Connector/J, etc)

  • php works fine (Score:2, Informative)

    by B00yah ( 213676 )
    on my sites, along with virtually every other plug-in and feature I need.

  • PHP works fine with Apache 2.0 (Score:5, Informative)

    by FattMattP ( 86246 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @01:16PM (#9087081) Homepage
    Errr, is PHP playing nicely with Apache 2 yet?
    Yep, and it always has as long as you use the prefork MPM [apache.org] which is the default which you compile Apache. That makes Apache 2 service requests in the same manner as 1.3. Where people have problems is when you use PHP with the worker MPM [apache.org] which uses threads. Although the PHP core is supposed to be thread safe the developers can't guarantee that other PHP modules will be. Stick with the prefork MPM and you'll be A-OK.

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the big hangup in adoption at the moment is mod_perl. mod_perl 2.0 is supposed to fix that but it's still under development at the moment.

    Here's a link for people who wonder what a MPM is: http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mpm.html [apache.org]

    • Thats correct. No one I know is willing to use mod_perl under a 2.0 environment because it has 'issues' according to the guys on #apache freenode.
    • I personally am waiting for the perchild to be fixed so i can run php in virtual hosts as the user instead of running as apache like suexec does. Having everything group writeable for applications like Gallery sucks as someone could exploit that and delete my photo gallery or who knows.

      • Re:PHP works fine with Apache 2.0 (Score:5, Informative)

        by Neon Spiral Injector ( 21234 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @02:28PM (#9087987)
        You can have almost the same funtionality as mod_php if you use a CGI php with Linux's misc_binfmt to register *.php files with /usr/bin/php. You just have to chmod +x each php script and set the ExecCGI option on directories you want to run PHP from. Then you can use suexec to separate users.

        Of course it does limit you to features that are availible to the CGI version of PHP. But that is just about everything, except some of the PATH_* varibles.

        Other than that, I wouldn't hold your breath over the PerChild. I held mine for about 6 months, and I got nothing but blue in the face. That is when I resorted to the system above.
    • Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the big hangup in adoption at the moment is mod_perl. mod_perl 2.0 is supposed to fix that but it's still under development at the moment.

      mod_perl 2.0 is still technically in development (1.99_04 is the latest version), but I've found it stable enough to use in production, and have been without problems for quite some time now.

      It's a little crufty, especially around the (almost necessary) libapreq2/Apache::Request library, and as far as API documentation goes,
    • I'd also sugges that the fact that there is several MPMs, while beneficial in the long run, is slowing down apache 2.0 acceptance.

      Think about it, all the third party modules had to support one apache(1.3) now they have to be thread-safe, or recommend that you use prefork. Prefork is ok, but most of the hype that was generated when apache 2.0 was launched was for the other mpms (perchild is an especially nice idea) but most third-parties have either never heard of them, or decide not to support them.
      Now if

  • mod_ssl? (Score:1)

    by Arlo ( 1223 )
    Someone let me know when mod_ssl gets updated too. That's when I upgrade.

    • Re:mod_ssl? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ryquir ( 172934 )
      Uh you did know that the seperate add to apache and build mod_ssl is only for 1.3.X variants right? The same functionality is found included with Apache 2.0 see Apache 2.0 Docs [apache.org]

  • Yes, Virginia, there is a PHP (Score:4, Interesting)

    by aminorex ( 141494 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @01:53PM (#9087553) Homepage Journal
    My employer has been using 2.0.40 with php 4.2.2
    for a coon's age. Ignore the scarewords. (Yes,
    using non-threadsafe 3d party libraries with a
    multithreaded application execution model is prone
    to bugs... so don't do that, doh!)

  • This is NOT a release. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Orbital Sander ( 237340 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @01:59PM (#9087622) Homepage
    As you can read in this message [theaimsgroup.com], this is not a release but a Release Candidate. It was posted in the /dev/dist directory so testers can have at it.

    Now, if all of you want to download and test this release, and report your findings back to the httpd-dev mailinglist, by all means go for it.

    But this is not a release yet.

  • The 1.3.31 RC Tarballs have been removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by jimjag ( 68949 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @02:39PM (#9088117) Homepage
    As Sander mentioned, 1.3.31 is NOT released. If it had been, you would have seen an announcement... Is being first to post such a big thing now that we don't even bother *checking* the facts?? Because of this totally mistaken idea, the tarballs on httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ have been removed, which means more work for those of us coordinating and testing the release. However, to avoid people running unofficial releases, this seems to be what we need to do. Depending on the viability of the 1.3.31 RELEASE CANDIDATE tarballs, 1.3.31 may be released (*really* released) in the next few days.

  • If you've highly customized instance of Apache, the configuration API changes make it expensive to upgrade.

    You can stay in the old branch or spend hours figuring out how to do the same thing with the latest version. People take the old until they need new features in the new version.

    The good news is that Apache is stressing that configuration/public APIs need to be more stablea across versions. Thank you!

  • 99.999% of us don't need 2.x (Score:3, Informative)

    by Splork ( 13498 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @02:48PM (#9088182) Homepage
    1.3.x is great. 99.999% of us don't need 2.x. and of the remaining 0.001% that think they do at least half of them would be better off buying more than one computer to serve their website.

  • Use PHP with FastCGI (Score:4, Informative)

    by Fweeky ( 41046 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @03:20PM (#9088586) Homepage
    mod_fastcgi should be thread safe, and the FastCGI PHP SAPI module is probably better tested than the Apache 2 ones. Plus, if PHP crashes it doesn't take Apache with it, and you can do fancy things like jailing the daemonized PHP's, or running multiple servers as different users.

  • Apache 1.3.31 is NOT released.. only 1.3.29. (Score:5, Informative)

    by EMR ( 13768 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @07:55PM (#9090607)
    1.3.31 is in development.. it has NOT been officially released..

  • try to run it with nss_ldap (Score:3, Informative)

    by MaoTse ( 624765 ) on Saturday May 08, 2004 @03:59PM (#9095574)

    I was really suprised when I had to switch to httpd-2.xx when I moved on to a Ldap based setup using padl nss_ldap library. (No apache ldap modules involved).

    CGI with suexec on 1.3.xx just wouldn't work. All I had were segfaults ;-).

    Problem vanished when I upgraded to apache2. Now all my CGI users are happy. And, of course I run apache in prefork mode ;-).

  • Read all about it:

    Apache 1.3.31 Announcement [apache.org]
  • Apache 2 with prefork + php works just fine. No problems whatsoever. I've been running this in production for several months now handling 35k requests/day.

    On a dual processor FreeBSD 5.2.1 machine Apache 2 can compile from the ports (I had to tweak the portfile, though I think this has been fixed now) using worker threads. It even runs and handles all I could beat it with using apache bench ( ab(1) ) over fast ethernet LAN.

    That same worker thread setup with PHP dumps core all over the place.
  • right now i think it is just personal preference. i still use apache 1.3 on my macs because its what comes with OS X 10.3, and i don't feel like upgrading. and i'm doing all my development in PHP 5 and MySQL 5 now (due to the fact that by the time i'm done with what i'm writing, they will be stable) and PHP 5 works beautifully with 1.3. so no, i don't feel the need to upgrade. on linux, i toy around with 2.0, but i'm just so familiar with 1.3, it makes it easier. and multithreading and support for BeOS and

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close