Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1

    apache 2.2 vs apache 1.3 review for forum owners

    Hello,

    Just want share my take on apache 2.2 vs. apache 1.3 for forum owners.

    Platform:
    dual 265 opteron
    8gb ram
    raid 1 sata 250 GB
    RHEL 4 32bit
    php 4.4.4 w/ eac.

    keepalive off
    start,min, max servers 15 10 20

    1. I found that my average load on ap2.2 was .6 with peaks at 2. However, on ap1.3 the average load was .2 with peaks at .6 .

    No backups were done during test period.

    2. Memory usage was about 400-600MB (ap22) and 600-800mb (ap13)

    3. Page generation times were faster on apache 2.2 (.0017s) vs apache 1.3 (.0019s), forum threads (.0248 vs. .0265).

    Just want to hear from other members of what their take is on these two server versions.

    I have not tried apache 2.0 . I wonder if there really any difference (maybe results in between).

    My site has gzip on and has mod_rewrite. There are not much images. Site has 80K-90K page impressions a day.

    THanks.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Apache 2.2 > Apache *

    (from my experience)
    MediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
    The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business

  3. #3
    what makes apache 2.2 better?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by HeadNucleon
    what makes apache 2.2 better?
    Simply from the benchmarks that I've done, Apache 2.2 delivers a lot better performance and can stand up better to heavy traffic.

    Also in the server that you described, I think the bottleneck is I/O.
    MediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
    The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    813
    forget apache, lighttpd is the way! its simply faster

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    13,294
    What kernel are you using?
    Steven Ciaburri | Industry's Best Server Management - Rack911.com
    Software Auditing - 400+ Vulnerabilities Found - Quote @ https://www.RACK911Labs.com
    Fully Managed Dedicated Servers (Las Vegas, New York City, & Amsterdam) (AS62710)
    FreeBSD & Linux Server Management, Security Auditing, Server Optimization, PCI Compliance

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    345
    20 sounds like a very low number of process if you're using Apache 1.3. Are you sure that people weren't getting blocked out of your site during that time? Did you monitor thread usage?

  8. #8
    yes, monitored the threads. It was like 8-9 proc/s .

    I'd wish apache 2.2 did better, but this is what I saw. I was expecting 2.2 to be lower in load....which was something I did not expect.

    I was thinking about lighttpd but I think its a little dificult to install. I prob have to try it on a test server.

    The real question is if apache2.2 is better in high traffic, why is load sig. higher than apache 1.3

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Goleta, CA
    Posts
    5,550
    Why turn off keepalive?
    Patron: I'd like my free lunch please.
    Cafe Manager: Free lunch? Did you read the fine print stating it was an April Fool's joke.
    Patron: I read the same way I listen, I ignore the parts I don't agree with. I'm suing you for false advertising.
    Cafe Owner: Is our lawyer still working pro bono?

  10. #10
    lower load with keepalive

    my kernel is 2.6.15.7

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    868
    Quote Originally Posted by HeadNucleon
    lower load with keepalive

    my kernel is 2.6.15.7

    upgrade it to v2.6.18 , its realy fast

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    584
    How much of a performance increase did you get with that kernel ? We've not noticed any difference between the kernels on our high traffic sites. Are you removing anything special or adding anything special in the kernel ?
    Last edited by ImZan; 09-23-2006 at 04:49 AM.
    BLUETRIDENT.NET - Reliable Shared, Reseller and Dedicated Hosting Solutions Provider
    Managed Hosting with Personal Service
    Highspeed Content Servers, Lighttpd, Ruby on Rails, Cluster Servers & Rich Web Application Hosting

  13. #13
    Im curious to know the same answer. I doubt upgrading to 2.16 or 2.18 will yield a significant performance change.

    Also, output buffering on 2.2/2.x is messed up. It does not work with the flush() command properly. Using this command in 1.3x and 2.x yields different results.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    13,294
    Depends on what drivers you are using. I have noticed some changes with certian scsi drivers.
    Steven Ciaburri | Industry's Best Server Management - Rack911.com
    Software Auditing - 400+ Vulnerabilities Found - Quote @ https://www.RACK911Labs.com
    Fully Managed Dedicated Servers (Las Vegas, New York City, & Amsterdam) (AS62710)
    FreeBSD & Linux Server Management, Security Auditing, Server Optimization, PCI Compliance

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    584
    @HeadNucleon : Are you implicitly flushing things after the page is sent ? Because that is actually wasteful of resources from our tests. The default behaviour is much better for performance.

    @Steven: The systems I've tested with the higher kernels - they were generally ide or sata, so I don't think I would have had that much more speed increase to begin with. Do you have any anecdotal info on how much the increases were ?
    BLUETRIDENT.NET - Reliable Shared, Reseller and Dedicated Hosting Solutions Provider
    Managed Hosting with Personal Service
    Highspeed Content Servers, Lighttpd, Ruby on Rails, Cluster Servers & Rich Web Application Hosting

  16. #16
    THe flush was called in the IPB script. I commented the flush out because it could cause issues in the forum code (only for 2.2). Like I said, the code does not act the same what the function is called....

    The flush function was called only during registration (when generating reg code)

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    584
    Which version of IPB is that ? We're running the latest - never noticed any issues with the system. We still have people signing up. What method are you using for the verifications ? GD or the basic ?
    BLUETRIDENT.NET - Reliable Shared, Reseller and Dedicated Hosting Solutions Provider
    Managed Hosting with Personal Service
    Highspeed Content Servers, Lighttpd, Ruby on Rails, Cluster Servers & Rich Web Application Hosting

Posting Permissions

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