Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!news From: Ken Bigelow <kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Apache and FreeBSD versions Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 19:52:12 +0000 Organization: Erol's Internet Services Lines: 89 Message-ID: <32BD916C.4B5F@www.play-hookey.com> References: <E2FwC0.4yy@nonexistent.com> <E2MKzC.Ks7@nonexistent.com> <32BCF239.683B@www.play-hookey.com> <E2tw30.JKp@nonexistent.com> Reply-To: kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com NNTP-Posting-Host: kenjb05.play-hookey.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:32864 Louis Epstein wrote: > > Ken Bigelow (kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com) wrote: > : Louis Epstein wrote: > : > > : > Louis Epstein (le@put.com) wrote: > : > : Recent discussions of Apache and FreeBSD vs. Netscape etc. made me look > : > : in /usr/ports/distfiles to see what version of Apache I had,I installed > : > : it when I just got my FreeBSD 2.1 running and haven't looked since. > : > : > : > : I have 1.0.0. > : > : > : > : Some time ago I copied a new Ports Collection onto my HD,which specifies > : > : version 1.0.5,but I don't know if trying to install this would work,as > : > : the file's likely not there any more...just like the link on the FreeBSD > : > : Release Information Page(which still says the 2.1.6 release "will > : > : probably occur in the next 2-3 months") announcement for 2.0 Alpha > : > : gives a supposed link from which one could FTP FreeBSD 2.0A which of > : > : course doesn't work! > : > : > : > : The current Ports Collection entry is apparently for 1.1.1. > : > : > : > : The version they are now hawking at www.apache.org is 1.2b2. > : > > : > This is now the one in the Ports Collection as of 12/17. > : > > : > : I'm wondering what I may gain by upgrading Apache,AND if doing > : > : it before or after an upgrade of FreeBSD 2.1 to 2.1.6 would make > : > : a difference...or what difference in performance might be attributable > : > : to each change if I did both. > : > : > : > : I understand the previous discussion said 2.2,but not 2.1.6, > : > : had been tweaked to run WWW faster,but in an ISP operation > : > : environment stability's the key...I suppose that,with reference to the > : > : mentioned caching program,Squid 1.0.22 would be a better bet than > : > : 1.1.0. > : > : My priority is also stability. I'm running Apache 1.1.1 on FreeBSD 2.1R > : with no problems. I will leave it this way for the present, to retain > : that stability. I won't be upgrading to either 2.1.5 or 2.1.6 on the > : server machine, with 2.2R just around the corner. As soon as I know 2.2 > : is truly stable, I expect to upgrade to that platform, but I can't see > : changing the platform every couple of months under my circumstances. > > 2.1.6 is,we have been told repeatedly,stabler than 2.2...the analogous > release of 2.2 isn't due until summer '97.I've been running 2.1 since > the end of '95,and if 2.1.6 is better,I figure it may be worth the > upgrade hassle,while early 2.2.x won't be.(Just as I'd be likelier to > go from 2.2.[max x] to 3.1 than to 3.0.) You're right, of course. And it's also true that 2.1.6 has some capabilities not present in 2.1R. We'll see; I've been planning on upgrading the hardware as well as the FreeBSD OS. I expect I'll get the new hardware first; I've been considering going to a PCI board. But my 33.6K dialup is still the primary bottleneck... > > : For the same reason, I won't run the beta version of Apache. When > : they're past the beta stage and have no little latent bugs surfacing > : after releasing the next flavor of Apache, I'll look at upgrading that. > : Fortunately, changing back to the older version of Apache is far less of > : a problem than changing back to the older version of FreeBSD! > > Hmm,but now they have replaced 1.1.1 with 1.2b2 in the Ports Collection... > so it's the beta or no upgrade from there. > > Any thoughts on Squid? You can still get the stright distribution from http://www.apache.org and then compile it. That's what I do, so I can insert the modules for dbm files, cookies, etc. They even have a module for mSQL. If you go this route, you only need to edit two files in the src/ directory -- Configuration and httpd.h -- to fit the FreeBSD requirements. Then run Configure, then make. It's always worked fine for me. As for Squid, I've seen references to both it and CERN cache in my agent_log file, but I haven't tried it, and so have no opinion. I figure that my 33.6K dialup is the basic bottleneck on my system. Until I can upgrade that to at least ISDN, any efforts I make to speed up the box will have little practical effect. -- Ken Are you interested in | byte-sized education | http://www.play-hookey.com over the Internet? |