Results 1 to 19 of 19
Thread: Apache 2.2.14 vs 1.3.41
-
10-20-2009, 07:28 PM #1Newbie
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Posts
- 26
Apache 2.2.14 vs 1.3.41
Hello,
I am trying to decide on upgrading our Apache version from 1.3.41 to 2.2.14.
From what I can tell 2.2 is MUCH faster, but I have seen many reports of 2.* version crashing more frequently than 1.3.
Does anyone have some solid information on the reliability of 1.3.41 vs 2.2.14?
Also, any other items I may love/miss from upgrading?
PS. We are running php4 (default) + 5.
Thanks!
-
10-20-2009, 07:30 PM #2Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Posts
- 4,568
I've been running 2.x for a long time without any problems. Why not upgrade, and if things don't work out, downgrade to 1.3.41?
-
10-20-2009, 07:35 PM #3Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- USA
- Posts
- 252
Same here, I have a "transitioning" set up at the moment, where all of my clients' sites one by one are transferred to Apache 2 server. If all goes well we keep them there (and rent more servers as needed). So far we only have 2 web sites that don't work on anything above Apache 1.3, PHP 4 and MySQL 4 and those are being looked at.
Web Design and Development by Zealus - Complete business solutions for the web!
Small business blog - small business consulting, company analysis, advisory and more.
-
10-20-2009, 07:36 PM #4Newbie
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Posts
- 26
-
10-20-2009, 07:38 PM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Posts
- 4,568
-
10-20-2009, 10:04 PM #6Retired Moderator
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- San Francisco
- Posts
- 7,325
Apache 2.2.x is quite stable at this point and I would definitely start transitioning over from 1.3.x.
-
10-20-2009, 10:07 PM #7Retired Moderator
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 3,499
Yup, as everyone else has said I run 2.2.x on all my boxes (Ubuntu and CentOS w/ cP) and have no problems. Definitely worth the upgrade.
Alex
-
10-20-2009, 10:15 PM #8Disabled
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Posts
- 3,262
1.3 is a legacy version and 2.2 is highly recommended by apache.
-
10-20-2009, 10:22 PM #9WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Posts
- 158
Yeah, 2.2x is far better even some point work better then litespeed or lighthpd after proper tuning that's what my server admin said.
-
10-21-2009, 12:35 AM #10WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ
- Posts
- 162
I'm running Apache 2.2.3 and there's no going back to older versions. The only catch is it prompts for a passphrase on restarts when serving https. If you don't keep the passphrase handy it won't run until you enter it.
bigwrench
-
10-21-2009, 01:33 AM #11Backup Guru
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Location
- New York, NY
- Posts
- 4,618
Scott Burns, President
BQ Internet Corporation
Remote Rsync and FTP backup solutions
*** http://www.bqbackup.com/ ***
-
10-21-2009, 01:34 AM #12Backup Guru
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Location
- New York, NY
- Posts
- 4,618
Scott Burns, President
BQ Internet Corporation
Remote Rsync and FTP backup solutions
*** http://www.bqbackup.com/ ***
-
10-21-2009, 07:40 AM #13Support Facility
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 2,335
Apache 2.2.x versions offers numerous enhancements, improvements. You will be happy to have it.
-
10-21-2009, 07:47 AM #14Temporarily Suspended
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- USA
- Posts
- 1,572
We also run Apache 2.2.x cant complain.
-
10-21-2009, 08:54 AM #15Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Posts
- 477
Apache 2.2 isn't as bad as many old-fashioned people want it to be All our servers run Apache 2.2 for long time, we have no complaints so far.
█ Hosting24.com Web Hosting - First class web hosting services.
█ Boxbilling - Complete billing, invoicing and client management system.
-
10-21-2009, 06:32 PM #16Newbie
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Posts
- 26
Nice!
Really appreciate so many responses on this topic, all were informative
The answers seem to be unanimous, Apache 2.2 here I come!
Now... What version of MySQL would you recommend for this Apache version? We are currently running 4.1.22-standard, should we upgrade to 5?
Security is a HUGE concern.
Thanks again!!!
-
10-22-2009, 03:44 AM #17Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Posts
- 477
As far I know, MySQL 5 is stable. We run it with great success.
█ Hosting24.com Web Hosting - First class web hosting services.
█ Boxbilling - Complete billing, invoicing and client management system.
-
10-22-2009, 04:52 AM #18server automation specialist
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Nevada
- Posts
- 662
mysql5. Its got a truck load of new features. Check out http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/...-nutshell.html and if you are planning to upgrade, refer http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/...us-series.html as well.
James B
►WWW.EZEELOGIN.COM |Setup your Secure Linux SSH Gateway►MEET PCI DSS & ISO 27001 Compliance|Manage & Administer Multiple Linux Servers Quickly & Securely.
-
10-22-2009, 10:07 AM #19Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Posts
- 3,110
I've been using 2.2 in production for ages now, probably more than a year infact and I've had no issues with it crashing.
I personally think 2.2 is as stable as 1.3 from real-world use in production. I suppose it also depends on how much load you are pushing.
Similar Threads
-
How to replace apache prefork to apache worker on Centos 5??
By toy_boy in forum Hosting Security and TechnologyReplies: 5Last Post: 09-09-2009, 12:59 AM -
Easy::Apache v3.2.0 Build 4469 Apache Config
By jgnr in forum Hosting Security and TechnologyReplies: 1Last Post: 10-26-2008, 08:23 AM -
Apache procs constantly rise, until apache is restarted.
By hal987 in forum Hosting Security and TechnologyReplies: 14Last Post: 07-25-2007, 08:10 PM -
After upgrading apache 1.3.x to apache 2.x on redhat Linux the webs do not show.
By jonathan184 in forum Hosting Security and TechnologyReplies: 1Last Post: 11-04-2005, 11:22 AM -
apache problem... switch from cgi to apache module URGENT!
By needhelpcom in forum Hosting Security and TechnologyReplies: 8Last Post: 06-07-2004, 06:53 AM