Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004

    Apache 1.x VS. Apache 2.x?

    Hi there,

    what would you rate being the main differences between apache 1.x and 2.x? Is it worth at all switching to 2.x? What about Speed and Load?

    best regards, dd

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Might also consider lighttpd if that's an option for you.
    “Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under
    considerable economic stress at this period in history.”

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Tampa Florida
    Apache 2 is a better overall design.
    That being said, 1.3 is a rock. It has been tested for years and is very stable and has few, if any, serious bugs left in the codebase.

    Performance, Depends on the OS and the hardware.

    apache2 seams to have a big advantage on any setup favoring heavy threading. I have tested it on a sun T-2000 and it destroys apache1.3.
    I have been told that it pretty handily wins on almost any windows box as well (But havent personaly seen this).
    I know that an opteron or xeon running FreeBSD doesnt really care. They both seam to do well when tuned correctly.
    I stay with 1.3 at the moment as I am still more comfortable with it, and I runn a lot of OpenBSD and they have done a good amount of code auditing on the 1.3.29 branch that they are using in their default install.
    Rock solid hosting and dedicated servers since 1998!
    StabilityHosting Where stability and uptime are king!

  4. #4
    Apache 2.x all the way for modern h/w
    Apache 1.3 if security is big concern (all major google/yahoo still runs on old code base)
    Lighttpd is also good choice but no cp support at all (very good if you run VPS because of its small memory usage).
    <<Please see rules for signature setup>>

Posting Permissions

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