GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   thinking of upgrading apache (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=647364)

elron 08-22-2006 07:19 PM

thinking of upgrading apache
 
ever since i manage servers i used apache 1.3 . but at my newest server i've decided to learn and install apache 2.0 and it looks like it can take more traffic then the 1.3 at the same server hardware . loads averages are much shorter for higher processes handled real time .

anyone experienced the same ?

HorseShit 08-22-2006 07:24 PM

I honestly don't see the point to it unless you need it for a specific reason

elron 08-22-2006 07:37 PM

well i said the reason , it looks like it can handle more traffic then the 1.3

Can anyone confirm that ?

fris 08-22-2006 07:50 PM

not sure always been a fan of 1.x but i just upgraded to php5

elron 08-22-2006 08:22 PM

i also use php5 , that didn't effect perfomance .

SplitInfinity 08-22-2006 08:51 PM

Apache 2.0 is MUCH better. :-)

Take it from 11+ years of experience with Apache. :-)

Tempest 08-22-2006 09:01 PM

I haven't quite figured out my problems yet but it seems like apache 2 does some things differently... i.e. On my 1.3 servers I have cgi-bin stuff set up to not be hotlinked.. But it doesn't work on the 2.0 server.. It appears that on 1.3, any additional requests for page items are done with the referer being the page itself as opposed to the surfer.. In 2.0 it seems that the referer it the surfer.. So in 2.0, the hotlinking prevents my scripts from running.. a pain for traffic trading scripts.

k0nr4d 08-22-2006 11:29 PM

I think apache 1.3 is waaay better. More third party module support and its been around for much longer

elron 08-23-2006 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SplitInfinity
Apache 2.0 is MUCH better. :-)

Take it from 11+ years of experience with Apache. :-)

better by what ?

ne0 08-23-2006 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elron
better by what ?

In a simple way: it's faster, and can handle way much more traffic with less cpu usage.
You can read the list of improvements/bugfixes at: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/new_features_2_0.html

In my personal opinion, it's damn better :)

elron 08-23-2006 08:37 AM

too bad i'll have to work my ass off for all the bugs it will do to my htaccess files and script :(

HunkyLuke 08-23-2006 08:39 AM

apache 2 is better, but the real difference is in the kernel version you are using.

cheers,
Luke

QTbucks_Mark 08-23-2006 09:59 AM

When configured correctly, Apache 2.0 kicks 1.3's ass. :1orglaugh

Especially under high load, switching from traditional prefork to the new worker-model makes a huge difference. If it's just for static content, I would say you can throw as much traffic at it as you want - you'll probably run out of bandwidth before your server breaks a sweat.

In fact, when my galleries get listed at thehun or other high-traffic sites, I can hardly see any increase of load on my servers. Other than bandwidth used that is... :winkwink:

Marshal 08-23-2006 11:35 AM

Apache 2.0 kicks-ass! :thumbsup


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123