Big John

On a new *nix server what version of Apache would you choose to install?

Up until now I've always used 1.3.* simply because 2.* used to have compatibility problems with some software. Is this still the case? Is 2.2.* fine to use now or should I stick with 1.3?

Looked everywhere for advice on this.

__________________

GrouchyAdmin

Are you doing this entirely by hand, or are you going to use shit like CPanel/Webmin/etc to manage it?

Most of those tools require 1.3.

I use 1.3 because hacked up with lingerd and a few handmade things, it's still faster with it's prefork model than 2.x, and (as of v4) was safer with PHP.

v-- mod_bandwidth can help you, and doesn't leak quite as quickly as mod_throttle.. but if you gracefully hup it twice a day, it doesn't usually matter.

__________________

mergrogh

I still use apache 1.3 cause mod_throttle doesn't work with apache 2.x and I need to limit bandwidth per vhost. I did not find another good solution which works with apache 2.x ...

__________________

GrouchyAdmin

I have the stupids. I didn't mean CPanel.. my brain is frazzled; I meant RavenCore. CPanel/DirectAdmin build their own version of 1.3.x

__________________

darksoul

I've been using 2.x for more than 2 years and I had no problems with it.

__________________
1337 5y54|)m1n: 157717888
BM-2cUBw4B2fgiYAfjkE7JvWaJMiUXD96n9tN
Cambooth

Big John

Thanks for the replies - I'll stick with 1.3 I think then as I've yet to see any big advantages of 2.x and compatibility is always a worry. I thought I may have missed something and there's actually a good reason to run 2.x.

__________________

ServerGenius

There are many good reasons to use 2.x over 1.3 performance being 1 of them.

__________________
| http://www.sinnerscash.com/ | ICQ: 370820 | Skype: SinnersCash | AdultWhosWho |

Big John

Argh - there ya go. The reason for posting as finding info comparing advantages/disadvantages isn't as easy as I thought it'd be.

2.x is simply new to me and I don't know enough about it even after shuffling through the Apache site to find the true advantages. If it has significant advantages then I'm happy to try it especially as by now most compatibility issues should be resolved.

__________________

ServerGenius

Google has loads of info about this including bench mark results....I suggest
you read a bit on that but above all just install it somewhere and play with it.
2.x isn't a whole lot different in terms of how to configure it. The best way
to see if it's any good for you is to just try it for a while.....I'm sure you'll
switch to it when you do and never look back

__________________
| http://www.sinnerscash.com/ | ICQ: 370820 | Skype: SinnersCash | AdultWhosWho |

GrouchyAdmin

It really depends on what you're doing with it. If you're using Apache to serve static pages and images, you're not using it for what it should be used for - managing/serving the dynamic content (there are smaller, thriftier systems that can do the static shit with ease, like thttpd, or lighttpd - both excel leaps and bounds with sendfile() kernel support).

My suggestion to you is to setup both; put one on the standard port 80, put the other one, oh, say, 8080 and use Apache's 'ab', or a comparable traffic tool to see how each performs for you.

Keep in mind that the Apache 1.3 core is nearly 10 years old; it doesn't natively have a lot of the support that 2.x does, but the things that are written for it have generally been tried and tested for many, many years - so again, it's an issue of stability. For most uses, 2.x is perfectly fine.

.. and, if you build mod_macro into 1.3, you can almost transparently switch between the two with a little bit of perl or awk-fu.

('sup Hans!)

__________________

Big John

I tried google to start and it could simply have been me using crap search terms pre-firstcoffeeoftheday but it was tough to find comparisons.

Time to do as suggested then I think and simply play with it (ooer) for a while. As I say a clean server so as yet nothing can be affected by having either installed

__________________

ServerGenius

As Toonpornblog suggested you can install it safely along 1.3 as long as you
don't try to have it listenening to the same port. It won't mess up anything
and you really should try it yourself instead of just listening to the advices of
others. As mentioned before it totally depends on what to want to accomplish
to find out which one is more suitable for you.

Lighttpd is great for running for example static galleries or bannerfarms. I
wouldn't use it for dynamic stuff even though it supports php and other
modules that would let you do that.

Always try to minimize the use of modules as much as possible. Apache's
architecture sucks when it comes to that. Every requests gets bucketed
through all the modules to determine if the request needs to get processed
by a module.....instead of only parsing it through a module when it really
needs to....The more modules you have installed the worse the perfomance
and the more resources it uses......and apache already has a HUGE memory
footprint.

If you don't change your apache once it's setup I suggest to compile it
statically instead of using DSO (only if you have enough ram in your server)
as the httpd binary is substantially bigger than a DSO compiled binary.
Static has all the modules compiled into 1 binary instead loading the modules
at every request.

(All good here Toonpornblog )

__________________
| http://www.sinnerscash.com/ | ICQ: 370820 | Skype: SinnersCash | AdultWhosWho |