3 ms·

Static HTML served through a bad / misconfigured httpd is worse than some integrated solutions. Some years ago everybody was using Apache, a terrible implementa

Static HTML served through a bad / misconfigured httpd is worse than some integrated solutions. Some years ago everybody was using Apache, a terrible implementation.

kayodelycaon 6y ago
The problem with Apache was people using the default config on small servers. Forking per request without proper limits on a small server? Zero to Swap at a hundred requests per minute. Less if it was using mod_php.
- lazyjones 6y ago
  The whole architecture was bad... Try serving static pages from an Apache configured with (and using, for some other user) mod_perl, for example. My point was that the whole setup counts, not just the fact that the pages are static. I'd rather serve content from some small Go executable than Apache + static pages. But apparently it's undesirable to point such things out. Best if I don't post anymore.
  - xorcist 6y ago
    Using mod_perl wasn't the best example, perhaps, as it works as one would expect and only starts a few Perl interpreters in the process which runs multiple threads. It is famously mod_php that isn't good in this regard and will naively start one interpreter per request. Since PHP 5.4 (released in 2011) everyone should just use PHP in FPM mode instead. The fact that mod_php only supported preforking caused a lot of spite and angst against PHP the language, which was understandable but perhaps a bit misguided. None of this has anything to do with Apache, of course. No web server should have any trouble serving static pages at any speed and you could do much worse than Apache.
  - Jaruzel 6y ago
    Your problem with your first post was that you said: Some years ago everybody was using Apache, a terrible implementation Without backing that statement up and explaining why. Your post came across as simple flame-bait. Nevertheless, please keep posting. Contrary opinions count. Without them, the world becomes the ultimate echo chamber.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Some years ago everybody was using Apache There's nothing wrong with Apache (which is called httpd now.) In fact, nginx and httpd have almost the same market share currently (34% vs. 27%.) https://news.netcraft.com/archives/category/web-server-survey/ https://news.netcraft.com/archives/category/web-server-surve... The web as we know it was created and defined on httpd. Most of the people screwing around with varnish, etc. don't know that httpd can be used in proxy configurations or with far-future expires headers to get the same performance. About the only time I think about using nginx is for the built-in throttling directives, which lets you centralize request throttling so that you don't need to hack up all your applications, especially if you use multiple programming languages.

Static HTML served through a bad / misconfigured httpd is worse than some integrated solutions. Some years ago everybody was using Apache, a terrible implementation.

kayodelycaon 6y ago

The problem with Apache was people using the default config on small servers. Forking per request without proper limits on a small server? Zero to Swap at a hundred requests per minute. Less if it was using mod_php.

lazyjones 6y ago
The whole architecture was bad... Try serving static pages from an Apache configured with (and using, for some other user) mod_perl, for example. My point was that the whole setup counts, not just the fact that the pages are static. I'd rather serve content from some small Go executable than Apache + static pages. But apparently it's undesirable to point such things out. Best if I don't post anymore.
- xorcist 6y ago
  Using mod_perl wasn't the best example, perhaps, as it works as one would expect and only starts a few Perl interpreters in the process which runs multiple threads. It is famously mod_php that isn't good in this regard and will naively start one interpreter per request. Since PHP 5.4 (released in 2011) everyone should just use PHP in FPM mode instead. The fact that mod_php only supported preforking caused a lot of spite and angst against PHP the language, which was understandable but perhaps a bit misguided. None of this has anything to do with Apache, of course. No web server should have any trouble serving static pages at any speed and you could do much worse than Apache.
- Jaruzel 6y ago
  Your problem with your first post was that you said: Some years ago everybody was using Apache, a terrible implementation Without backing that statement up and explaining why. Your post came across as simple flame-bait. Nevertheless, please keep posting. Contrary opinions count. Without them, the world becomes the ultimate echo chamber.

redis_mlc 6y ago

> Some years ago everybody was using Apache There's nothing wrong with Apache (which is called httpd now.) In fact, nginx and httpd have almost the same market share currently (34% vs. 27%.) https://news.netcraft.com/archives/category/web-server-survey/ https://news.netcraft.com/archives/category/web-server-surve... The web as we know it was created and defined on httpd. Most of the people screwing around with varnish, etc. don't know that httpd can be used in proxy configurations or with far-future expires headers to get the same performance. About the only time I think about using nginx is for the built-in throttling directives, which lets you centralize request throttling so that you don't need to hack up all your applications, especially if you use multiple programming languages.