Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Southwest UK

    Apache 1.3 v 2.0

    Hi everyone.

    I've been reading on a certain control panel's forum that they do not support apache 2.0 because it is really slow and non-scalable compared to apache 1.3, and I'd like to know the community's view on this. A comment descibed how someone could run a few thousand sites on apache 1.3, compared to a few hundred using apache 2.0 (using the same resources)

    I know the religious differences between the two apaches, and I don't give a damn. I do care that Apache 2 has a better architecture and can work with its modules better (an example comes to mind of chaining one module through mod_deflate, which is difficult with mod_gzip, or so I've heard)

    So, is Apache 2 very much less scalable (for perhaps legitimate security reasons), or less scalable for architectural reasons, or are the reports I've read simply due to the age of the comments (ie. did it used to be the case when apache 2 first came out, but not anymore), or is it just the usual "my-apache-is-better-than-yours because it-doesnt-use-threads which are-a-horrible-hack-needed-for-windoze you n00b" ?


    PS. For the record, I'd rather use Apache 2.0, as its obviously one better. Can't wait for Apache 11.0 to come out

  2. #2
    All newer distros are using apache2. If a control panel does not support apache2 then it won't be around for that much longer.

    apache2 benchmarks on its release showed it was very scalable. And my experience with confirms those benchmarks.

    (BTW: Even if apache2 'only runs hundreds of sites' that's probably all you need.) - VPS Hosting and Dedicated Server Hosting since 2003 - Peace of Mind Web Site Monitoring

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts