3 ms·
Uh well, it wasn't "decades ago" but it was some old timey stuff. Yahoo used Apache 1.3 as recently as 2012. They also disabled Keep-Alive on Apache, and most p
by skuhn 11y ago
Uh well, it wasn't "decades ago" but it was some old timey stuff. Yahoo used Apache 1.3 as recently as 2012. They also disabled Keep-Alive on Apache, and most properties would use the hardcoded default number of prefork processes (32). It wasn't the smartest setup.
Nevertheless, I don't think that nginx / Apache / Varnish / haproxy / etc. are able to handle similar concurrent connection levels as ATS without significantly impacting 95th percentile latency due to their core architectures.
- jimjag 11y agoThere's good info here: http://www.slideshare.net/bryan_call/choosing-a-proxy-server-apachecon-2014
- skuhn 11y agoAgreed, it's a good presentation and does a good job of being fair to the various software considered. (I worked on a team closely related to Bryan's team at Yahoo)
- jjm 11y agoHey, nice seeing you here! Glad to see the project reach HN (finally). That indeed is a very good slide deck. Some features that I preach are: - good turnkey default values - lua support - config options galore (Bryan labels it a con, but if you want control it's perfect) - good logging - historically proven scalability on large smp, xxlarge memory, multi nic systems Edit: forgot to add one more thing though maybe not worthy a bullet point. If possible, a preference for physical rather than virtual is where I've seen performance with ATS shine. That is one reason why you would want as much config control possible.