Slashdot Log In
Apache 2.2.0 Released
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:12 PM
from the whole-new-bag dept.
from the whole-new-bag dept.
ikewillis writes "According to an announcement on apache.org, Apache 2.2.0 has been released. From the announcement: 'This version of Apache is a major release and the start of a new stable branch. New features include Smart Filtering, Improved Caching, AJP Proxy, Proxy Load Balancing, Graceful Shutdown support, Large File Support, the Event MPM, and refactored Authentication/Authorization.' View the ChangeLog or check out the new feature list."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
the wild west! (Score:3, Funny)
How does 2.2 stack up to 1.3? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll be willing to try upgrading in the near future in hopes of experimenting with and making use of the some of the newer featues, but I would like to hear some first-hand information from those who have recently made the leap to 2.2, if at all possible.
Re:How does 2.2 stack up to 1.3? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How does 2.2 stack up to 1.3? (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you really need to change? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, it sounds like you have what may be the perfect situation. Even if your servers are somewhat older, and not the most powerful, they are still very solid Sun systems. They will basically last forever. You suggest that mod_perl is working very well for you at the moment, too.
Perhaps an upgrade would be the worst thing you could do. Sticking with older, proven systems is many times a very wise idea.
Re:How does 2.2 stack up to 1.3? (Score:4, Interesting)
In the meantime, you should upgrade to 2.2, post a link, tell us what happens to your server.
Great Job ASF (Score:5, Insightful)
you guys ROCK
and special thanks to paul who pushed this through!
Inertia (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, I guess the big question is, how many people will actually adopt 2.2.0. I still remember when 2.0 came out to mostly a yawn as most people kept using 1.3.x. Even today, most of the servers that I come across or administer are still using 1.3.x because unless you were running Windows, 2.x didn't really offer spectacular improvements over 1.3.x, and looking at the changes for 2.(1|2).x (anyone who's going to transfer a >2GB file over HTTP is crazy
Re:Inertia (Score:5, Informative)
The change from 1.3 -> 2.0 was a very major one. The entire api was retooled; and for good reason, ap 1.3 had some rather serious deficiencies in the extensibility department (module load order significance, etc). 2.0 saw the birth of the exceedingly well designed APR (Apache Portable Runtime), a module-participation-driven abi ("hooks") and fast stack-unwinding i/o handling ("fitlers"). All good stuff, but slightly less able performance-wise on low-cpu-count hardware (extensibility always comes with a pricetag) and completely imcompatible with any module of even moderate complexity that had previously been written.
Times have changed though. The robustness of the abi design combined with the APR has led to some outstanding modules, such as extensive state awareness and dynamic load-balance adjustment without even USR1-style interruption. None of these capabilities are even remotely plausible under 1.3.
The point is: 2.2 is still the same core api design. Certainly, it contains some enhancements, but the bridge that must be crossed is miniscule in comparison to the 1.3/2.0 transition.
There is still much room for improvement (when isn't there?). For example, mpm looks like a good idea on paper, but how well does it really work in terms of abstracting the process/thread semantics into fairly "pluggable" components? How well can it really work? Thread-based design requires a completely different approach or the end result (treating threads like processes) simply nets you more "accounting" overhead and few significant gains to offset that (yes, I realize it wins on win32 which does not have a light-weight process model).
Re: Version numbers (Score:5, Informative)
As for transferring >2GB files, this comes up many times every day on #apache, and fairly frequently on the mailing lists, so people do actually want to do this.
Folks that are still using 1.3 are missing out on enormous strides forward. The "it still works fine, why should I upgrade" crowd are completely welcome to remain where they are, and we're not going to compel to move, but they are going to miss out on all sorts of cool things, in the name of "it's good enough already." Their loss, not ours.
Combining mod_proxy with mod_cache (Score:5, Interesting)
mod_disk_cache plus mod_proxy's ProxyPass seems like just the ticket - I could give it a few servers to proxy for, give it a few hundred gigs of cache, and it would then automatically intelligently cache for those servers. This would be a great, easy plug-in solution.
Has anyone used mod_proxy and mod_cache in this fashion? It'd be great to hear about others' experiences or configuration examples.
Re:Combining mod_proxy with mod_cache (Score:5, Informative)
use cache_peer to setup multiple debian mirrors as parents and it'll share the load between them.
In my testing with squid 3.0 vs squid 2.5 vs apache 2.1.9 (the last beta version before 2.2.0), squid vastly outperformed apache when it came to this type of application.
I'm sure someone will explain to me that apache 2.2 is actually far faster than squid, but in my experience, it's not.
If you want to provide the mirror as a subdirectory of your current site, instead of giving it its own IP and domain, just set up squid to reverse proxy your entire site. You can configure different paths in the url to go to different parent servers, so
YMMV etc etc, but that's what I'd do.
Different mirrors for different directories (Score:3, Interesting)
Can Squid handle that kind of
Re:Different mirrors for different directories (Score:4, Informative)
Thank god for LFS. (Score:4, Insightful)
This will finally mean I can wget DVD ISO images! Work with large files over WebDAV and it will also mean my logs can grow over 2GB which is cool.
HTTP works where FTP has problems when dealing with complex networks (firewalls/NAT etc etc).
Re:Thank god for LFS. (Score:4, Insightful)
And who the hell would want to run a server from behind a firewall? What a ridiculous idea.
Just use passive mode and it will just work just as well as http.
I see you've never configured a firewall then.
Claiming that http servers need to support over 2gb is like claiming that DNS servers need to. And show me a real reason to go for 64-bit on the desktop.
He gave some perfectly valid reasons for wanting LFS - WebDAV for one. You ignored them, probably because you didn't understand them. And then you called him an idiot. At least your sense of irony is well developed.
Can reconfigure without restart NOW (Score:5, Informative)
You can also do this: apachectl -k restart
Re:Can reconfigure without restart NOW (Score:5, Informative)
See the docs on stopping and restarting [apache.org] for reference.
Re:Can reconfigure without restart NOW (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can reconfigure without restart NOW (Score:3, Funny)
Who needs manpages anymore? Just ask on /., and some seasoned sysadmin will come to your rescue! (note: not claiming anything about the parent poster, looks genuine though)
--This comment also served to you by Apache [netcraft.com]Re:Right... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bid Update? (Score:4, Insightful)
any project in it's mature stages wont change much, at least not noticeable by most users.
if bash creates a new release, you aint gonna notice the difference.
if linux creates a new release, you aint gonna notice either (unless it's a major release, but in comparison, this apache release is not)
wtf? (Score:4, Interesting)
And who says continuations are a valid way to write web apps? I prefer to use request/response because that's the model of the underlying architecture. I also want my URLs to represent named entry points, not continuations within some arbitrary program.
And how the heck would Apache know how to save a continuation in any arbitrary programming language? Or is Apache supposed to turn into a set of libraries, one for Smalltalk, one for Ruby, one for Lisp.. ?
Explain what you mean, son....
Re:GUI? (Score:5, Insightful)
1/ There are Apache GUIs. Google them up. Some are free, some are not.
2/ Opening the config file in a GUI text editor and navigating around with a mouse should be fairly easy, especially with the copious amount of documenation in the config.
3/ It's very difficult to express the rich level of complexity of Apache configurations in a GUI. Just imagine how on Earth a GUI can be made to handle nested VirtualHosts, Directorys, and Files. Throw in some regexp, and suddenly, you are faced with a situation where it becomes a heck of a lot easier to just edit the config file. To say that a GUI is always easier than text is incorrect; it depends on the situation, and Apache configs are one of those situations where this is the case (kinda like how when dealing with non-photographic web graphics, you need to use PNG or GIF and avoid JPG like the plague and how when dealing with photographic web graphics, you have to use JPG... each rules over their own niche of strength).
4/ If a GUI is made, it is highly likely that it won't be as powerful as just using a text editor; it's not as expressive (see above). But there's really not much to do with the basic configuration, either. For the most part, the default configuration works just fine, and if someone needs to edit the settings, it's mostly for the complicated stuff that would be a bloody mess to do in a GUI.
5/ Compactness and portability.
Re:Stick with NCSA HTTPd 1.5.2a (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe I'll try CERN httpd 2.14, I'm not sure if 3.0 has enough of a track record."
Running Debian stable, eh?