[lug] [OT] Apache 1.3 vs. 2.0 on Linux
ryan.wheaton at comcast.net
Fri Apr 30 11:41:11 MDT 2004
I don't do work with Jakarta/Tomcat (yet), but we went with 1.3 because
2.0's php support isn't quite ready for production (so i've read)..
maybe it's PHP's support of 2.0... I can't remember specifically, but
when we put our PHP app on a 2.0 install it did weird things. I
learned apache starting with 2.0, and i've been really happy with my
probably not much help, but figured i'd throw that in the ring.
On Thursday, Apr 29, 2004, at 16:46 America/Denver, Dhruva B. Reddy
> My company is getting ready to migrate from IIS to Apache on RHEL 3.0.
> Our websites are written in Java, and run on Tomcat (with the web
> serving static content).
> I did some research a while ago which suggests that the main benefit of
> Apache 2.0 is its multithreadedness. I am under the impression that
> overhead of forking processes in Linux is relatively low, and therefore
> 2.0 doesn't buy you much (especially considering the maturity and
> support of 1.3).
> I googled a bit for a debate on the two, but I couldn't really find
> anything specific to Linux.
> Has anyone heard anything/thought/discussed this?
> Web Page: http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> Join us on IRC: lug.boulder.co.us port=6667 channel=#colug
More information about the LUG