low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Dexter Tomisson
Hi.

OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old.
Almost an abandonware.
Is it that impossible to see OpenBSD coming with (chroot'ed) Apache 2.2.x by
the default?
That would be great!

The license problem would be solved by discussing it with the Apache
community, imho.

http://old.nabble.com/OpenBSD---the-Apache-license-problem.-Why--td28387885.html

Thanks

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Christer Solskogen-3
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Dexter Tomisson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old.

No, it's not. Stop spreading lies.

--
chs

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Marco Peereboom
In reply to this post by Dexter Tomisson
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 06:31:22PM +0300, Dexter Tomisson wrote:
> Hi.
>
> OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old.
> Almost an abandonware.
> Is it that impossible to see OpenBSD coming with (chroot'ed) Apache 2.2.x by
> the default?

No, and by reading your email you know this and still whine about it.

> That would be great!

pkg_add apache

wow I am tired, someone feed me some grapes.

>
> The license problem would be solved by discussing it with the Apache
> community, imho.

Go ahead, tell them to make it ISC, BSD or MIT licensed.  Good luck with
that and report back when it is all done.

>
> http://old.nabble.com/OpenBSD---the-Apache-license-problem.-Why--td28387885.html
>
> Thanks

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Jan Stary
In reply to this post by Dexter Tomisson
On May 02 18:31:22, Dexter Tomisson wrote:

> Hi.
>
> OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old.
> Almost an abandonware.
> Is it that impossible to see OpenBSD coming with (chroot'ed) Apache 2.2.x by
> the default?
> That would be great!
>
> The license problem would be solved by discussing it with the Apache
> community, imho.

"Police? I just got trolled."

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO
In reply to this post by Dexter Tomisson
> OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old.
> Almost an abandonware.

I will print this mail and laugh everyday with it. :)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Tomas Bodzar-4
In reply to this post by Dexter Tomisson
Are you able to read? At least this
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq1.html#Included and snippet from it :

# Our improved and secured version of the Apache 1.3 web server. The
OpenBSD team has added default chrooting, privilege revocation, and
other security-related improvements. Also includes mod_ssl and DSO
support.

so version number doesn't mean that it's 6 years old or that it's crappy.

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Dexter Tomisson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old.
> Almost an abandonware.
> Is it that impossible to see OpenBSD coming with (chroot'ed) Apache 2.2.x by
> the default?
> That would be great!
>
> The license problem would be solved by discussing it with the Apache
> community, imho.
>
> http://old.nabble.com/OpenBSD---the-Apache-license-problem.-Why--td28387885.html
>
> Thanks
>
>



--
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Dexter Tomisson
In reply to this post by VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO
On 3 May 2010 03:31, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >I will print this mail and laugh everyday with it. :)
>


This is especially for you, Victor. Print that too please, and laugh
everyday :):

ab -n 10000 -c 10 127.0.0.1/1.tar.gz

Apache 1.3.29
Requests per second:    149.23 [#/sec] (mean)

Apache 2.2.2
Requests per second:    375.02 [#/sec] (mean)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Tomas Bodzar-4
Hups

# apache2 -v
Server version: Apache/2.2.8 (Ubuntu)
Server built:   Mar  9 2010 20:45:36

Requests per second:    125.07 [#/sec] (mean)

# apache2 -v
Server version: Apache/2.2.11 (Ubuntu)
Server built:   Nov 13 2009 22:06:57

Requests per second:    10108.85 [#/sec] (mean)

Are you using your servers in production or your benchmarking tools?


On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Dexter Tomisson <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 3 May 2010 03:31, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> >I will print this mail and laugh everyday with it. :)
>>
>
>
> This is especially for you, Victor. Print that too please, and laugh
> everyday :):
>
> ab -n 10000 -c 10 127.0.0.1/1.tar.gz
>
> Apache 1.3.29
> Requests per second: B  B 149.23 [#/sec] (mean)
>
> Apache 2.2.2
> Requests per second: B  B 375.02 [#/sec] (mean)
>
>



--
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Lars Nooden-2
In reply to this post by Dexter Tomisson
On Mon, 3 May 2010, Dexter Tomisson wrote:
> ab -n 10000 -c 10 127.0.0.1/1.tar.gz
>
> Apache 1.3.29
> Requests per second:    149.23 [#/sec] (mean)
>
> Apache 2.2.2
> Requests per second:    375.02 [#/sec] (mean)

Apache2 is significantly more complex:

ktrace -f /tmp/a2-ktrace.log -di /usr/local/sbin/httpd2
ktrace -f /tmp/a1-ktrace.log -di /usr/sbin/httpd

-rw-------  1 root  wheel   637834 May  3 10:58 /tmp/a1-ktrace.log
-rw-------  1 root  wheel  2316108 May  3 10:56 /tmp/a2-ktrace.log

ktrace -f /tmp/a2-ktrace.log -dit c /usr/local/sbin/httpd2
ktrace -f /tmp/a1-ktrace.log -dit c /usr/sbin/httpd

-rw-------  1 root  wheel   354900 May  3 11:09 /tmp/a1-ktrace.log
-rw-------  1 root  wheel  1517512 May  3 11:09 /tmp/a2-ktrace.log

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Jure Pečar
In reply to this post by Dexter Tomisson
On Mon, 3 May 2010 10:10:01 +0300
Dexter Tomisson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is especially for you, Victor. Print that too please, and laugh
> everyday :):
>
> ab -n 10000 -c 10 127.0.0.1/1.tar.gz
>
> Apache 1.3.29
> Requests per second:    149.23 [#/sec] (mean)
>
> Apache 2.2.2
> Requests per second:    375.02 [#/sec] (mean)


And while you're at it, please add nginx to the mix :)


--

Jure PeD
ar
http://jure.pecar.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Tomas Bodzar-4
In reply to this post by Dexter Tomisson
Just for update. OpenSolaris in VM

Server Software:        Apache/2.2.14
Requests per second:    396.00 [#/sec] (mean)

Server Software:        Apache/1.3.41
Requests per second:    1284.49 [#/sec] (mean)

Comparing it with previous results from Ubuntu and your results it
seems to be very "useful" in comparisons ;-)



On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Dexter Tomisson <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 3 May 2010 03:31, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> >I will print this mail and laugh everyday with it. :)
>>
>
>
> This is especially for you, Victor. Print that too please, and laugh
> everyday :):
>
> ab -n 10000 -c 10 127.0.0.1/1.tar.gz
>
> Apache 1.3.29
> Requests per second: B  B 149.23 [#/sec] (mean)
>
> Apache 2.2.2
> Requests per second: B  B 375.02 [#/sec] (mean)
>
>



--
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Jacob Yocom-Piatt-2
In reply to this post by Dexter Tomisson
<person who doesn't check the archives> why doesn't openbsd do X?

<person who does check the archives> the license is not acceptable |
benchmarking tools don't tell the full story | you do not understand the
security implications of what you suggest

in your case it's all 3 of the above. get a clue and do your homework
before you post stupid stuff.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Stuart Henderson
In reply to this post by Dexter Tomisson
On 2010-05-03, Dexter Tomisson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 3 May 2010 03:31, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> >I will print this mail and laugh everyday with it. :)
>>
>
>
> This is especially for you, Victor. Print that too please, and laugh
> everyday :):
>
> ab -n 10000 -c 10 127.0.0.1/1.tar.gz
>
> Apache 1.3.29
> Requests per second:    149.23 [#/sec] (mean)
>
> Apache 2.2.2
> Requests per second:    375.02 [#/sec] (mean)

so? base httpd isn't about performance, it's about providing
something that works well enough, gives people a reasonable set
of features, and under an acceptable license.

lighttpd 1.4.26
Document Length:        5600 bytes
Concurrency Level:      10
Time taken for tests:   2.751 seconds
Complete requests:      10000
Failed requests:        0
Write errors:           0
Total transferred:      58520000 bytes
HTML transferred:       56000000 bytes
Requests per second:    3634.91 [#/sec] (mean)

...but then, lighty doesn't do things many people have come to
expect from a general-purpose webserver...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Kevin Chadwick-2
With apache 1.3 being simpler I would imagine it has more scope for
speed than apache 2.

Which is faster, would be interesting but testing has to be thought out
well, depending on what you are hoping to prove. ab can be used for
some comparison tests but wouldn't reflect performance for live traffic
which would have to be replayed or cleverly produced for each server and
any tests would be affected by many factors which you would need to
control and monitor, without those monitors affecting the system.

Even if apache 2.2 was twice as fast, you are going to need multiple
connections and servers for high loads and redundancy at some point. So
speed helps reduce costs but I'd much rather have two more secure
apaches than one less secure one handling the same amount of traffic.

After all, insurance for payment gateways is tied to security breaches
(often client side), it would be nice if people using OpenBSD got a
discount, rather than being less! likely to be penalised :-)

It would be fairer if people using OpenBSD on their desktops could get
lower interest loans too or if microsoft had to compensate the banks
and the world for insecurity and crafty/stupid instability.

OpenBSD does more when running each process for security reasons and so
is arguably slower than Linux, but also does less by default and so is
faster than most distros. It's still blisteringly fast, especially where
it counts and if I had to choose one OS to use it would be OpenBSD.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO
> OpenBSD does more when running each process for security reasons and so
> is arguably slower than Linux, but also does less by default and so is
> faster than most distros. It's still blisteringly fast, especially where
> it counts and if I had to choose one OS to use it would be OpenBSD.
>

I informally compared Slackware with OpenBSD. Slackware boots faster,
but OpenBSD uses only 6mb of memory, while Slackware consumes something
around 50mb. (Right after the boot, without X, default setup)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Scott McEachern
In reply to this post by VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO
On 05/02/10 20:31, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
>> OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old.
>> Almost an abandonware.
>>      
> I will print this mail and laugh everyday with it. :)
>
>    

Ya, me too.  It'll sit beside your laughable emails where you argued
that the GPL is more free than the BSD/ISC license.  That whole
'definition of freedom' thing is still hilarious!

--
- RSM
www.erratic.ca

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Marco Peereboom
In reply to this post by VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO
wow what a useful comparison.

On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 10:04:45PM -0300, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote:
> > OpenBSD does more when running each process for security reasons and so
> > is arguably slower than Linux, but also does less by default and so is
> > faster than most distros. It's still blisteringly fast, especially where
> > it counts and if I had to choose one OS to use it would be OpenBSD.
> >
>
> I informally compared Slackware with OpenBSD. Slackware boots faster,
> but OpenBSD uses only 6mb of memory, while Slackware consumes something
> around 50mb. (Right after the boot, without X, default setup)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

Pekka Niiranen-2
In reply to this post by Tomas Bodzar-4
Tomas Bodzar wrote:
> Are you able to read? At least this
> http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq1.html#Included and snippet from it :
>
> # Our improved and secured version of the Apache 1.3 web server. The
> OpenBSD team has added default chrooting, privilege revocation, and
> other security-related improvements. Also includes mod_ssl and DSO
> support.
>

These all great additions. I just wish Subversion would someday
be compatible with those.

> so version number doesn't mean that it's 6 years old or that it's crappy.
>
> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Dexter Tomisson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> OpenBSD's stock httpd is very slow and outdated. It is about 6 years old.
>> Almost an abandonware.
>> Is it that impossible to see OpenBSD coming with (chroot'ed) Apache 2.2.x by
>> the default?
>> That would be great!
>>
>> The license problem would be solved by discussing it with the Apache
>> community, imho.
>>
>> http://old.nabble.com/OpenBSD---the-Apache-license-problem.-Why--td28387885.html
>>
>> Thanks

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: low httpd performance. Apache 2.2 as default? never? *sighs

John Wright-6
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 10:22:20AM +0300, Pekka Niiranen wrote:
> These all great additions. I just wish Subversion would someday
> be compatible with those.

Subversion is awful.  Try git, it supports http without having to
install fancy apache modules.