Is Apache 2.x Ready for General Use? 41
Above asks: "In this article we see apache 2.0.45 has been released. Well, I plan on rebuilding my webserver soon, which means installing the "latest" version. However, I'm still on the 1.x train, which is still going strong. As someone who hasn't used 2.x, and hasn't followed the development is it ready for the masses or should I stick with 1.x and be happy? Are mod_perl and ssl (my two requirements) stable? What about all the other things (php et all)? I don't do anything fancy with my web sites, but having them "just work" and not having to upgrade every other day are both strong concerns. What are your experiences?"
Almost... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Almost... (Score:3, Interesting)
really, it shouldn't be that hard.
Re:Almost... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Almost... (Score:1)
Re:Almost... (Score:3, Informative)
mod_perl is supposed to be
Re:Stick with 1.3.x (Score:5, Informative)
I use it (Score:5, Informative)
Apache 2 is ready, but why bother? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also mod_php, ssl and mod_php are working fine. (although shorter then Apache 2 itself). This is partly because Apache 2 wants thread-safety and some modules (actually not sure about Perl) aren't.
Is see no particular reason not to install Apache 2, but also no reason to do. Redhat is used a lot by internet providers and ships with 2.0 default since 8.0. The 1.3 branch is still maintained and seems faster on Unix-based systems (with fork). On Windows Apache 2 wins, due to the use of threads.
This is a bit standard answer (everyone knows this things, easy to find out), so I want to ask this: How long will all products (mod_*) still work just as good under Apache 1.3.x as under 2.0.x and will 3rd party providers drop support for 1.3 soon? (thus 'forcing' us to upgrade)?
Re:Apache 2 is ready, but why bother? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Apache 2 is ready, but why bother? (Score:3, Interesting)
Understanding the MPM stuff is still hazy, like how to tweak the process/thread limits like I did in 1.3.x. It would be nice if someone would write up a document specifically about these (beyond the documentation already ava
Re:Apache 2 is ready, but why bother? (Score:1)
Seems OK to me (Score:3, Informative)
It's ok but.... (Score:5, Informative)
However, we do have one complaint and have filed bug reports [apache.org] which so far have been unresolved. (btw, prior to apache-2.0.39 we did not experience this problem)
A number of uses of SUN servers (we use ULTRAS and V100's) have noted that apache httpd children processes hang ocassionally. With prior than .45 releases we were seeing a hang a few times a week. With the .45 release we are seeing on average 3 to 5 hangs a day, so the problem has gotten worse.
This is not just our boxes - other people have confirmed the problem and the orginal bug report referenced above was actually opened not by me. I asked the original poster if they had problem too with the .45 version and they just upgraded last week and reported back that it also appeared to them to have the problem worse.
Specifically, a child will hang. If you connect via port 80 (e.g., telnet) to the child it answers, but when you type your line (e.g., GET /) it hangs upon carriage return and ALL the children then are hung in the same manner. There is no load associated with the hang, but the server stops responding FOR A PERIOD OF TIME to port 80 requests (e.g., they all hang). The server does seem to eventually recover - but not fast enough for our clients ;)
Both the original poster and myself have written watchdog programs which ping (mine pings every 5 seconds) the server and if the server doesn't respond it sends a KILL -USR1 signal (bascially a form of HUP) to the parent process. In 99.9999% of the cases this unsticks the parent and life returns to normal (note, there is no load associated with the hung children - e.g., load does not go up when the child hangs). In the .0001% of the cases where at least two consecutive KILL's don't unstick the parent we do a forced kill of all apache and restart it (again, automated by the watchdog).
THe other reporter is also using SUNS, so this might be particular with their 2.8 OS. Also, ALL of our suns exhibit it, regardless of apache config, etc.
Besides that, also note there are a few changes to the config so using your old config will PROBABLY result in apache bitch'n the first time you startup, but the changes are pretty minor (mostly things you don't need anymore).
I've been getting that too (Score:1)
I had a set of URL's to test my logging daemon, I set wget off locally and got the same behaviour the parent describes.
wget would fly through the requests for a while then I noticed it saying "connection refused". While scratching my head it sprung back into life. This pattern was repeated.
Until I can verify that this is something that doesn't happen any more I won't be putting it on public view.
I run it at home as a filtering proxy. You can pipe all pages received thro
Re:I've been getting that too (Score:2)
Since we've implemented this strategy no users or clients hav ever noticed the hangs. Like I mentioned, we get a few a day (3 to 5) but they're resolved within 5 seconds of occuring..
Our little iDefend progra
Re:It's ok but.... (Score:1)
I was running Apache 1.3.x (and it worked just fine), and when I made the switch over to Apache 2.x (after I upgraded RedHat 7.2 => 9.0), I started getting all sorts of random hangs and crashes in my PHP code.
I recompiled Apache, ran gdb on it, and found where one of its children processes was segfaulting and driving CPU utilization up to 100%
Re:It's ok but.... (Score:2)
There were other reports similar to yours of high load but those have been resolved (as per the bug reports). I recommend searching the apache bug reports for "high load" and "hang" and see if you can find your report and the associated fix.
maybe (Score:4, Informative)
I run both on my servers as I have users who aren't ready for the switch yet and others who want to run the 'latest and greatest'. I also happen to run all of MySQL 3, MySQL 4, and Postgresql 7.3
I like it (Score:3, Informative)
If it Ain't Broke... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you have a good reason to upgrade, why bother? If this is for a business, and you have no good reason, you have nothing to gain and something (time to upgrade, etc) to lose.
I'm *not* bashing Apache, which is a damn fine product - but we need to get this 'irrational urge to upgrade' out of our heads.
Apache is fine, but the modules.... NO. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Apache is fine, but the modules.... NO. (Score:1)
I Recently Did The Same Thing (Score:3, Informative)
I wrote up an article on installing and configuring the Apache 2.x series with SSL, mod_perl, mod_php, standard graphics libraries (GD, libjpeg, libfreetype, libpng), FreeTDS (to connect to MS SQL Server), and pam_smb/mod_auth_pam (to authenticate against an NT PDC) [alpha-geek.com]. Pretty exhaustive Apache setup. At the very least, I can assure you that everything works just fine even with those ultra-specific Apache needs.
enochRe:I Recently Did The Same Thing (Score:2)
Apache as a reverse proxy? (Score:1)
Re:Apache as a reverse proxy? (Score:1)
One of our customers ( http://www.amcham.com.br/ [amcham.com.br]) uses it extensivelly, as a "front-end" to dynamic web sites running on both a Zope [zope.org] server running on the same machine, and a MS IIS server running on a separate machine. Also, this same Apache also serves up static content residing on files in the same machine.
We also do caching for the "static part" (.gif,.css,.jpg,etc) of the dynamic content, as we have found that this redu
Re:Apache as a reverse proxy? (Score:2)
This bug was confirmed from apache developers, but it well might be fixed now (I'm back to apache1).
Apache1 is perfectly up to the task, but be sure you understand what headers the backend servers have to send in order t
Re:Apache as a reverse proxy? (Score:1)
Re:Apache as a reverse proxy? (Score:1)
Kinda (Score:2, Insightful)
you could always mod_proxy to 1.13.x (Score:3, Informative)
That way I knew my old setup would still work while I get the chance to use Apache2 to experiment.
Any new stuff could then be tested on both
No. (Score:2)
It supports IPv6, but my 1.3.27 does that as well,
_and_ it's audited by Theo de Raadt.
http://www.OpenBSD.org/
http://MirBSD.BSDadvoc
Not really (Score:2, Informative)
Not really. (Score:1)
And a lack of Apache::Request makes mod_perl2 pretty much useless.
Nuff said.
Re:Not really. (Score:1, Informative)
Considering how there are -a lot- of sites running apache2 and PHP4, I'd say check your facts first
(Blu3)