Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PHP Software Programming Apache

Is Apache 2.0 Worth the Switch for PHP? 465

Posted by michael from the play-nicely-children dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It seems like some of the members of the Apache Software Foundation are a little angry with the PHP Community because they don't recommend using Apache 2.0 with PHP. Since PHP is installed on half of all Apache servers this is a major issue for them. A number of high-profile PHP community members such as John Coggeshall and Chris Shiflett have blogged about this decision in light of a recent posting by Apache Software Foundation Member Rich Bowen which called PHP's anti-Apache2 stance FUD. Is there any real reason for the PHP community to start recommending Apache 2.0, especially when the 1.3.x series of Apache is rock solid and proven? Note Rich did later commend PHP for being a great product, so it's not all flames."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Apache 2.0 Worth the Switch for PHP? More

Is Apache 2.0 Worth the Switch for PHP?

Comments Filter:

  • PHP used to be an ASF project (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gtrubetskoy ( 734033 ) * on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:32PM (#11150738)

    I should probably be noted that PHP used to be an official Apache Software Foundation project until it was mutually agreed to end this relationship. I have no clue as to what the underlying reasons were and as an ASF member myself would rather not speculate on this. See ASF Board Meeting Minutes [apache.org] for Feb 2004 (section 5.G).

    P.S. Apache 2.0 is great and there is no reason not to use it IMO.

  • apache2 is essential for Windows (Score:3, Informative)

    by hey ( 83763 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:32PM (#11150744) Journal
    Anybody still running Apache1 on Windows is nuts.
    Apache2 works way better on Windows.

  • FUD in it's purest form ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sonic McTails ( 700139 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:33PM (#11150751)
    The problem that PHP can be linked against non-threadsafe libraries, and this causes issues with Apache 2 when it's using the Worker MPM. However, if PHP died and takes the thread with it Apache simple restarts it. I had Apache2 and PHP in this configuration for almost a year, and expect for threads randomly restarting because of PHP, I had no issues. If you want to solve the thread problem, change the MPM to prefork (which is the default last I looked), which emulates the Apache1 behavior, and stops that problem.
    • This was the major reason that PHP has been said not to be used with Apache2. It has NOTHING to do with Apache, it's potential security issues with PHP and some non-thread-safe **EXTERNAL** libs. 95% of it is security related issues. If you're willing to pay attention to your server (like all good admins are supposed to do) there's no real problems that I've seen.
      • So, why don't they put a lock around the PHP interface to those libraries? Or why don't they make thread-safe successors of those Free libraries that, presumably, they do have the power to edit?

        Bruce

        • Re:FUD in it's purest form ... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by JabberWokky ( 19442 ) <slashdot.com@timewarp.org> on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @03:59PM (#11152004) Homepage Journal
          Several of the libraries are commercial software interfaces. I have no idea how many (if any) are unsafe, but they are things like interfaces to Oracle, commercial layout software, etc.

          As for putting a lock around them, I'd imagine that when that happens, it would be considered thread safe *except*...

          PHP has a user contributed library system similar to CPAN called PEAR. Some of the libraries in PEAR aren't threadsafe... and even if somebody went through and updated them, next week there will be several new one that are not threadsafe.

          Now, all of this would be moot if there were a compelling reason to push to Apache2. The impetus would be there to do the work. But, right now, the last of the 1.x series is just as stable and performs as well as Apache2. That means that there's simply no reason to do the work, and Open Source doesn't like to do unnecessary work.

          When there is a benefit to the ongoing work necessary to make it and *keep* it threadsafe, it will likely be done.

          --
          Evan "And yes, I realize the irony of saying how Open Source works in this reply"

  • It's a threading issue (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:34PM (#11150764) Homepage Journal
    Either PHP itself, or many PHP applications, are not written to deal with the multi-threading offered by Apache 2.0 . So, it seems, you will do best if you install one of the less optimal threading models. And then you lose much of the benefit of Apache 2.

    Apache 2 and a recent Linux kernel come pretty close to the theoretical limits of the hardware when it comes to serving static content. It just loafs along while saturating whatever net connection you give it. It's worth trying out.

    Bruce

    • I'm sorry Bruce, you'll have to come back later. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Mr Guy ( 547690 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:37PM (#11150804) Journal
      It's not nearly late enough in the thread for someone respected to post correct, non-inflamatory, rational information.

      You're going to stop all the foaming at the mouth, and who wants a half-frothed troll this close to Christmas?

    • Re:It's a threading issue (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I beg to differ. Apache 1 or 2 for that matter is no where near the maximum performance level when it come sto serving static content.

      As projects such as thttpd, tux, boa, lighttpd and many others clearly demonstrate. In fact the performance of Apache 1/2 is no where near what the solutions I've mentioned offer.

      • Slashdot uses Boa for images (Score:5, Informative)

        by Tim Macinta ( 1052 ) * <twm@alum.mit.edu> on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:48PM (#11150954) Homepage
        I beg to differ. Apache 1 or 2 for that matter is no where near the maximum performance level when it come sto serving static content. As projects such as thttpd, tux, boa, lighttpd and many others clearly demonstrate. In fact the performance of Apache 1/2 is no where near what the solutions I've mentioned offer.
        Quite true. I've improved the performance in the past of a very high traffic website by switching what content I could from Apache to Boa. Boa performed substantially better than both Apache 1.3 and 2.0. If you need further evidence, look at the HTTP response headers for one of Slashdot's own images [slashdot.org] - they are serving images using Boa instead of Apache for a reason.

        This isn't to say that Apache is worthless. On the contrary, it is an exceptionally good server. It just doesn't scale as well as some others for static content.

      • Efficiency is not entirely a web server function (Score:5, Informative)

        by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @03:15PM (#11151337) Homepage Journal
        For most web servers on Linux, once the server has figured out what static file to send, it calls sendfile() and the rest of the work is entirely in the kernel until the file has been transmitted. On certain network cards, sendfile() has the property of being able to DMA from the disk to the network card without intermediate buffers. At least for big files, this is probably running very close to the hardware limit. For small files, the server efficiency is more of a factor.

        Bruce

    • The question is, is there a plan to resolve this threading issue in the future?

      If not, then you can either run Apache2 with the pre-fork or just accept restarts or run Apache1.x.x

      If it will be dealt with then this isn't much of a problem long term. It's just short term growing pains.

      • Re:Homegrown apps are one thing... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:56PM (#11151070) Homepage Journal
        I suspect, and here I'm out on a limb, that it's a fundamental architecture issue. PHP simply did not have global thread-safety as a design goal. And thus it could be difficult to remedy at this late date, especially if it's to be done without breaking things.

        Bruce

        • suspect, and here I'm out on a limb, that it's a fundamental architecture issue. PHP simply did not have global thread-safety as a design goal. And thus it could be difficult to remedy at this late date, especially if it's to be done without breaking things.

          Which, as I have remarked earlier, is a sympton of PHP never having been designed to run on Windows.

          Maybe there's an opportunity for someone to get famous by writing PHP interpreters in both Java and C#, and then they can sell it to all the PHB's out

    • Re:It's a threading issue (Score:5, Informative)

      by TheTomcat ( 53158 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:46PM (#11150932) Homepage
      All due repect (and I have a lot of it), but:
      Either PHP itself, or many PHP applications, are not written to deal with the multi-threading offered by Apache 2.0.

      That's just plain not true. The underlying threading problem has little to do with PHP, and absolutely nothing to do with PHP applications, but libraries to which PHP links (libmysqlclient, libpdf, libmcrypt, etc etc etc). It's these third-party libraries (over which the PHP developers have no control) that cause Apache2 to be unstable in the various threading modes (prefork works fine, but is just not officially supported).

      S

      • Re:It's a threading issue (Score:5, Informative)

        by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @03:02PM (#11151157) Homepage Journal
        No problem with the respect, this is an area in which I don't have tremendous expertise. But I submit that if PHP itself is in charge of its interface to a non-thread-safe library, it can put a lock around calls into it - effectively single-threading each library and that would perform at least as well as going to a less efficient threading model for apache, and potentially better depending upon where contention happens. And given that this is Free Software, thread-safe successors of those libraries can be developed.

        Bruce

    • Apache2 with a prefork MPM still way outperforms Apache 1.3 with PHP and is rock solid. Too bad this is not the default on Windows.

      If you use the worker or Win32 MPM, you are stuck with using CGI.
    • FYI, PHP compiled in CGI-mode completely eliminates the threading issues that PHP has with Apache 2, and allows you to continue to use Apache in worker mpm mode (which is, by far, the most efficient -- think orders of magnitude better performance on the same hardware).

      The CGI may be a little slow to start up a PHP interpreter, etc etc, but it is rock solid. That said, using a real multithreaded application server (like, oh, any of your Java app servers) with Apache 2.0 is the best solution.

    • And then you lose much of the benefit of Apache 2.

      I don't understand.

      Are the PHP developers not recommending Apache 2 because it is harmful to upgrade? Or are they not recommending Apache 2 simply because there really aren't any benefits to upgrading.

      Upgrading (and rolling back an upgrade) Apache has always been pretty simple, and it's pretty easy to have a 1.3 Apache running alongside an Apache 2.0.

      • Re:It's a threading issue (Score:5, Informative)

        by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @03:10PM (#11151255) Homepage Journal
        It's because there are potentially random problems because of two threads writing the same data at the same time. Code that depends on the value of a global variable not changing from one line to the next might break. Imagine that you increment a variable and then assume that its value is one greater than before, but it's really two greater.

        To their defense, the PHP folks say the problem is with libraries they don't control. But there could be a thread-safe PHP interface to them.

        And I guess the bottom line is that they don't want to keep answering questions about this, so they just say don't upgrade to Apache 2.

        Me, I use Zope. I think it's always been multithreaded.

        Bruce

    • Re:It's a threading issue (Score:5, Informative)

      by pthisis ( 27352 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @03:07PM (#11151218) Homepage Journal
      Most of the benchmarks I've seen for Apache 2.0 on linux have been pretty ambivalent; the prefork MPM is generally better at ramping up to handle large numbers of connections, and serves more reqs/sec under high load, while the worker MPM serves large numbers of requests to small numbers of connections more efficiently. But those numbers seem to fluctuate based on the application and the number of processors used, and I've seen some applications where one model was nearly twice as efficient as the other--and I've seen that big a difference work in favor of both models, for different apps (which probably points to some MPM-specific design decisions in that particular application).

      As always, the decision over whether to use threads or processes should be based primarily over whether you want to give up protected memory within your application or not (unless you're dealing with a platform like Windows where the process model simply isn't flexible enough to avoid throwing memory protection out the window).

    • Re:It's a threading issue (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rho ( 6063 )
      Apache 2 and a recent Linux kernel come pretty close to the theoretical limits of the hardware when it comes to serving static content. It just loafs along while saturating whatever net connection you give it.

      As I recall, an old benchmark showed that a 486 running Linux and Apache could saturate a T1 serving static content. I'm not sure what benefit a "static content" metric has to any discussion concerning modern Web technologies. If static content is your problem, there are gobs of Web server solutions,

  • Multi-thread... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by allanw ( 842185 )
    Well, as the article probably says.. Many of PHP's modules aren't thread-safe. So there'll be little errors that might not show up until you have thousands of concurrent accesses. This of course can be solved by using the pre-fork config for Apache2..

  • No need to switch ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:35PM (#11150783)
    I run a FreeBSD server with Apache 1.3.33 and PHP 4.3.10. When I was upgrading it a week or two ago to FreeBSD 5.3, I thought about making the switch to Apache 2.0. But then I thought ... What is that going to bring me?

    Apache 1.3 has been working flawlessly for me. Until I have a compelling need to switch to Apache 2.0, I'm not going to. I understand that there are some nifty new features in Apache 2.0, but not a single one of them is something that I want/need.

    This, I think, is the primary reason why people aren't going to Apache 2.0 in droves, not the PHP team's "FUD".

    • Re:No need to switch ... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) *
      Apache 1.3 has been working flawlessly for me. Until I have a compelling need to switch to Apache 2.0, I'm not going to. I understand that there are some nifty new features in Apache 2.0, but not a single one of them is something that I want/need.

      Exactly. This is happening with a lot of free software lately, namely the Linux kernel... I used to keep up-to-date on the kernel just because it was always getting better.

      2.4.x has been rock solid for me and 2.6.x just doesn't offer anything to me that makes
    • I run a FreeBSD server with Apache 1.3.33

      One 3 too many, and one 7 short of 1337! Work on it. Maybe install Slack or something...

  • I've been using php 4 and Apahace 2 for a long time on my web servers. They're not high volume servers, but I've not had problems.

    I can't remember when Redhat started using Apache 2, but I've been using it as soon as they included it into their packages.

    Is this an issue that would resolve itself as Linux Distributions include Apache 2 and the # of Linux servers increases. As you have a higher volume of Apache 2 servers out there, it will tip the balance toward a friendlier attitude between PHP and Apach

  • Why are there two?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jdavidb ( 449077 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:37PM (#11150806) Homepage Journal

    Can anyone point me to a succint explanation of why there have been an Apache 1.x line and an Apache 2.0 line for years? This to me has always seemed like an implicit statement from the Apache people that I should not yet move to 2.0.

    I checked the front page of Apache and there were release announcements for the latest version of both lines. Neither announcement carried a statement indicating when you should use it over the other. The front page does not appear to link to anything addressing the issue, and the FAQ does not appear to handle it, either.

    • Re:Why are there two?? (Score:2, Informative)

      by jdew ( 644405 )
      From what I've gathered, Apache2 is a reimplementation and 1.x is just in maintenence mode (security fixes etc)

    • Re:Why are there two?? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:51PM (#11151008)
      I checked the front page of Apache and there were release announcements for the latest version of both lines. Neither announcement carried a statement indicating when you should use it over the other.

      It's on the download page [apache.org]:

      "Apache 2.0.52 is the best available version"

      "Apache 1.3.33 is also available"

      The message would appear to be '2.0.52 is the best, but if you insist you can get a lesser version'.

    • Re:Why are there two?? (Score:5, Informative)

      by rbowen ( 112459 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:56PM (#11151064) Homepage
      It's very simple. We want people to move to 2.0, but since people have not done so, we're not going to leave them high and dry.

      • Re:Why are there two?? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jdavidb ( 449077 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @03:13PM (#11151293) Homepage Journal

        I have no problem with that policy at all. But there is nothing at all on the front page to answer the question "Which Apache version should I use?" Even if the answer is not a simple "Use 2.0" or "Use 1.x," there needs to be answers to "Why would I want to use 2.0" and "Why would I want to use 1.x."

        I have been interpreting the continued maintenance of the 1.x line for years as a statement that 2.0 was not ready for prime time. I'm pretty sure this was the case at one time. The website needs to just come right out and say, "If you are starting with Apache for the first time, please use 2.0. The 1.x branch continues to be maintained for existing users who need to remain with an older version." Couldn't that at least make it to the FAQ?

    • Much the same as... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by yoshi_mon ( 172895 )
      In large projects there are often people who have production systems that would incur large costs if they were forced to do a major rev upgrade.

      Of course before OSS this was never an issue as people didn't have a choice but as people now do, thanks largely in part to the ability of OSS project heads to put a few "free" developers on a older rev for maintenance, large OSS projects often maintain older revs for the sake of the users..

      You really need look no further than the Linux Kernel [kernel.org] to see another examp
  • I've been migrating several live production sites and adding new sites to a box with PHP 5.0.3 and Apache 2.0.52. The previous setup was rock solid Apache 1.3.x and PHP 4.x. I started the migration with the lowest traffic sites and plan to slowly move up to higher traffic sites. So far there have been no issues.

  • PHP and Threaded Apache (Score:3, Informative)

    by Daeron ( 4056 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:39PM (#11150826)
    I guess the only reason i can think of not to use PHP on Apache-2 ... is if you absolutely HAVE to use a threaded version of Apache-2.

    THe apache-2 (Worker MPM) itself is rock solid and definately seems to boost performance of ones http-server compared to traditional apache-1.3.

    I am not exactly sure about a prefork-MPM vs apache-1.3 comparison.

    The biggest problem with PHP on any threaded Apache-2 (i am not sure if this holds true for the 1.3 series as well) ... is the fact that PHP keeps continuously crashing your httpd-processes.

    Switching to the prefork MPM makes everything rock-solid again ... but looses the benefits the threaded-MPMs offer.

    If PHP could actually solve their problems with running in a threaded Apache-2 ... i would jump right on it :)

    Again .. i never experimented with a threaded apache-1.3 (not even sure if that's possible) ... but for Apache-2 with the current state of PHP .. it's not recommended ...

  • Well worth the upgrade (Score:3, Informative)

    by cybermint ( 255744 ) * on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:40PM (#11150830)
    Apache 2.0 has proven to have so many new features that it was well worth the upgrade. Early on we encountered some minor issues with the threads, so we switched to pre-fork and have had no issues. We have been running PHP and mod_perl in pre-fork mode without a single issue for the last year. Unless you cannot switch because you use a module with no 2.0 support, I would make the switch immediately. And don't forget, you can always install both apache 1.x and 2.0 to give it a test run.

  • Nobody told me! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anne Thwacks ( 531696 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:40PM (#11150834)
    I never knew there was a problem - I have three mission critical servers (telecomms billing) running PHP5 on Apache 2, and nothing seems to have gone wrong in 12 months of 24/7 operation.

    What is supposed to be the problem?

    • Re:Nobody told me! (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      PHP depends on a large number of external libraries that may or may not be thread-safe, and in many cases they are claimed to be thread-safe but aren't. Throw in the fact that some of these libraries are system libraries and the problems may not be reproducible on other systems, and you realise that making "PHP" thread-safe (in reality, making all the libraries it depends upon thread-safe), or even just tracking down where the problem lies, is a massive problem. The PHP devs have essentially said "not our

  • PHP and Apache 2.0 seem fine (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dr.Dubious DDQ ( 11968 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:43PM (#11150873) Homepage

    As mentioned (probably more than once by now), the only issue is some non-thread-safe libraries that PHP can link to. Configuring Apache to run with the "Prefork" MPM solves this problem (by running with the same model as Apache 1.x did).

    I see no reason so far to discourage use of Apache 2.0 with PHP other than vague "well, I heard from some guy that he tried it and it had some kind of problem" sort of complaints. Personally, I like the fact that Apache 2.0x has mod_ssl and mod_deflate (/mod_gzip) as part of the codebase, so I no longer have to compile and install them separately...

  • Sounds like PhP is trying to manipulate the behavior of the Apache group.

    If the issues are not substantive then why the big hulabaloo?

    Religious wars only serve to speed up entropy in the system...
  • ...right here [semwebcentral.org].

    It's been serving a decent amount of traffic [semwebcentral.org] for quite a while with no problems...

  • Using PHP on Apache 2.0 right now. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by suso ( 153703 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:46PM (#11150925) Journal
    I'm using PHP on Apache 2.0 production servers right now. Honestly, I can say that PHP is more at fault for its own problems. I think that having lots of configurable options for a programming language is a bad idea. It leads to applications working on one installation of PHP, but not another. Administrators who enable things like safe_mode and turn off register_globals on shared servers are made fun of by ignorant programmers who don't understand what safe_mode is for and its usefulness. I have encountered all of this.

    The one thing that I wish PHP would take advantage of in Apache 2.0 is the ability to run code as a user other than the web server. Every time I bring this up with the PHP developers, nobody really runs with it. A feature like this would make PHP much better in shared systems and prevent people from having to do weird things to ensure security. I guess PHP is not that great for shared systems right now.

    • I spoke to the Zend [zend.com] guys about this at OSCON [oreilly.com] six months ago. They said they had a suexec version of PHP in "private Beta". I sent them several emails afterwards asking whether we could test it / help out etc, and haven't received a single reply, so I have no idea whether that's still coming.

      Anyone have any more info on this?

      cLive ;-)

    • You have raised some crucial points. I have been running PHP on my production servers for several years now, but I have always wanted answers to these questions. As time goes on I am amazed at the total silence, and actually the fact that more people are not asking the same questions. Or else, maybe I am an idiot and I am not understanding some fundamentals.

      1. why is magic_quotes_gpc on by default? Every time I install PHP somewhere I need to go into the global php.ini and turn this off. Even worse, wh

    • The one thing that I wish PHP would take advantage of in Apache 2.0 is the ability to run code as a user other than the web server. Every time I bring this up with the PHP developers, nobody really runs with it. A feature like this would make PHP much better in shared systems and prevent people from having to do weird things to ensure security. I guess PHP is not that great for shared systems right now.

      suExec for PHP is available. My ISP has switched to PHP suExec several weeks ago. I noticed that somet

    • I think that having lots of configurable options for a programming language is a bad idea. It leads to applications working on one installation of PHP, but not another.

      i agree completely- i have had no end of problems with one of my co workers who continually writes code that requires register_globals and magic_quotes_gpc, no matter how many times i ask him not too. and even though i have told him that those options will be turned off for any new system that i set up, he still asks me why his code is bre
      • There simply shouldn't be a php.ini. Or if there is one it should be along the lines of the config files other languages use to set up DNS resolution, library load paths, etc.

        Imagine if every system had a gcc.ini, a glibc.ini, and so on?

        Imagine if allow_pointers, disable_switch_statement, and short_circuit_boolean were system-wide global settings?

        Good luck getting enough compatible software on a system to even boot it!

        A language should have defined default behavior. If you want to modify the default b

  • Making the sqitch (Score:3, Informative)

    by haplo21112 ( 184264 ) <haplo AT epithna DOT com> on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:48PM (#11150966) Homepage
    I amde the switch over to Apache 2.0 and PHP 5 about 3 weeks ago at this point and have found it to be rock solid so far. My impression was that the PHP guys are recommending PHP4 for Apache 1.3.x and PHP5 for Apache 2.0.x. So in translation what they are not recommending is PHP4 on Apache 2.0.x. Perhaps I have gotten the wrong impression but that's what I got...

  • No its not worth it, (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jason Hood ( 721277 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:49PM (#11150976)

    Stick with kernel 1.3.79 and Apache 1.1 just to be "safe".

  • What extensions? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bucky0 ( 229117 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:51PM (#11150994)
    Is there a list somewhere of extensions that are known to be non-thread safe? Or do I need to just test them one by one?

  • apachetoolbox supports the 1.x apache (Score:3, Interesting)

    by phildog ( 650210 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:55PM (#11151052) Homepage
    For me the reason to use apache 1.x with PHP is very simple. That is the only configuration that is supported by ApacheToolbox [apachetoolbox.com].

    I've done the roll-your-own apache/mod_perl/mod_php/mod_etc.etc.etc... thing before. I'd love to have those hours of my life back. So if the Apache foundation really cares about evangelizing 2.x why don't they create something as powerful as ApacheToolbox that actually works with 2.x?

  • How many hits? (Score:5, Informative)

    by dsb3 ( 129585 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @02:58PM (#11151103) Homepage Journal
    I sustain 5 million hits per day on an Apache2+PHP server that (for me) indicates it's a "do-able" platform to run with.

  • I think they're right (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jeif1k ( 809151 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @03:00PM (#11151121)
    PHP prides itself on being an easy-to-use language for web applications, and it succeeds. Unfortunately, Apache hasn't become any easier to install and configure between 1.x and 2.x; in fact, if anything, I think it has gotten overall worse. That's why Apache 1.x is a better match to PHP than Apache 2.x. If Apache wants 2.x to be a better match with PHP, then Apache needs to address the problems the PHP community sees with 2.x.

    Personally, I'd like to see more server alternatives to Apache anyway. I think there should be a handful of FOSS web servers capable of hosting PHP, web servers that make different kinds of tradeoffs between performance, security, and ease-of-use. The huge market share that Apache has, from my point of view, is a problem, just like the huge market share that Microsoft has in other areas.

  • Apache Tweak. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DarkHelmet ( 120004 ) * <.mark. .at. .seventhcycle.net.> on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @03:04PM (#11151184) Homepage
    I've been running Apache 2.0 for the past year or so, without any problems whatsoever.

    The problem is running apache in WORKER or PERCHILD MPM modes. Those are the ones that are using threading.

    What I'd recommend to anyone who wants to have a robust, fast apache implementation is to do the following:

    • Setup a version of Apache on port 80 that runs worker MPM. Use this version for serving images and html files.
    • Setup a separate version of apache (port 9000 or whatever) on prefork that runs all CGI / PHP based stuff.
    • Proxy requests matching PHP / CGI / etc to the port 9000 version of apache.

    There you go... performance increase for 75% of serving requests.

    P.S: Avoid perchild at all costs!

  • FUD is logical. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann DOT slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @03:08PM (#11151230) Homepage Journal
    PHP spread FUD about Apache2 because that's what they *THINK* of it.

    [F]ear - what if my PHP processes crash?
    [U]ncertainty - has this thing been tested yet?
    [D]oubt - Hmmm I'm not sure...

    And as far as I know, no one has dared to make a COMPLETE TEST of PHP running with Apache2, explaining which PHP modules fail and why.

    In other words, it's simply FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN what the php community has about Apache2.

    • Re:FUD is logical. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Qzukk ( 229616 )
      no one has dared to make a COMPLETE TEST of PHP running with Apache2, explaining which PHP modules fail and why.

      This is what I want to know. Which modules use libraries that are threadsafe (or have threadsafe versions)? Which modules are known to crash the thread?

      I build php here with postgresql as the only additional library over whatever the default modules are (and I have found threadsafe patches for libpq). Is having threadsafe libraries enough?

  • Stop picking on PHP (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Duncan3 ( 10537 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @03:19PM (#11151405) Homepage
    Stop being so mean! It's not PHP's fault they can't run in a thread model. Threads have only been commonplace for 25 years, and the standard way you do things for 15.

    They just need some time to catch up. Apache 2.x is light years faster/leaner/meaner then 1.x was. Oh, and PHP runs perfectly fine under 2.x, as others have pointed out.

    OK, so yea, it's actually kinda sad (read: pathetic)
    • My belief is that PHP is fine under threads, a lot of the third party stuff is unknown (can be read: probably will break) and the PHP guys don't want to bother with broken 3rd party stuff.

      This kind of misses the point. The assumption "why bother with apache 2.0 if it doesn't run in multi-threaded mode" misses all the cool things that have gone into apache 2.0 outside of the threading models. I'ts a lot saner, and has cool things like chaining (output of CGI can go through SSI) and a million other things.

  • mod_lisp (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stesch ( 12896 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @04:30PM (#11152450) Homepage
    Well, mod_lisp was a good reason to stay with Apache1. But there was some work done on the Apache2 version of the module, so it should be all clear to upgrade to Apache2, if you need it for more than just serving to your lisp image.

  • changes how things are done, and not what is done (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PhYrE2k2 ( 806396 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @04:45PM (#11152703)
    Apache 2 changes CORE functionality- great! But that doesn't really affect what it does, but rather how it does it. Maybe if it implemented some new HTTP 1.2 I would get it in there... but who'd notice?

    Apache1 has been tried, tested, and true and has reached a lovely 1.3.33 version, of which security patches are rare and bugfixes are also rare. Similar situation with mod_ssl. So why leave your nice warm, structurally stable house in favour of the blistering cold to try something new that has a new version for bugs and security on a much more common basis? Personally, until Apache 2 gains some serious market share, I see no reason to leave. We provide hosting- and need reliability, and can't be wasting time with constant updates (though updates are better than not fixing of course) when we could otherwise stick with Apache 1.

    Apache1 does one thing, and does it well. Period. Sure there are crazy new features of Apache2, and I've tried them else. Personally, I see nothing compelling to move at this point. There are a few small 'that would be nice' features, but really nothing exciting in the way of Linux2.6, WindowsXP, etc. Even 2.6 is having slow adoption. You can only find it on workstations, because no supportive provider is about to live on the bleeding edge and leave their customers bleeding. Apache on the other hand doesn't have a place on the workstation (unless it doubles as a causal server), so in the same way, you're trying to get those folks who prefer stable releases (like Debian stable) over bleeding edge.

    So why switch?

    "Bad press leads to lots of misinformed morons saying stupid things about how Apache 2 is not ready for prime time." -- I guess I'm one of those morons. Personally I'm not about to replace one of the core pieces of software between us and our customers with something that hasn't proven itself to me. We've set it up in testing environments, and found that it performed similarly and didn't offer anything new we need.

  • Apache2.0 = XFree86 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @06:18PM (#11153764) Homepage
    Fights between opensource projects are always sad. Part of the openness is use it however you like... recommendations are opinions. ASF isnt quite blocking PHP yet, but things can go wrong as we've seen in the case of jboss and xfree86.

    Whats stopping anyone from uniting php and apache1.3 and packaging them together for each platform the way sqlite was incorporated into php? They go well together, makes alotta sense to be the same project.

  • From a webhosting standpoint... (Score:3, Informative)

    by bedessen ( 411686 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @05:15AM (#11175503) Journal
    If you know anything about webhosting you know that cPanel/WHM (and competitors, e.g. DirectAdmin, Fantastico, etc) still support the stodgy old Apache 1.3/mod_php model. The vast majority of sites out there run on cPanel or some other type of shared/reseller type of control panel/managed hosting software. Until this changes, don't expect Apache 2.0 to make any inroads.

    That said, everyone should hope 1.x to die ASAP. Basically the Apache developers have to do double duty maintaining two completely seperate branches. If everyone could let 1.3 die then there would be a LOT more manpower available to concentrate on 2.0. For many many years they have said that no new features are going into 1.3 -- everything is happening on 2.x. Yet they still have to maintain security fixes and chase down bugs on the 1.3 branch which is very creaky. There is a reason, after all, that they decided to rewrite everything for 2.x.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close