Apache 2.2.3 Released

NickFritz said:
screen works, it fixed my problem and make sure you do

./build mod_perl_ap2

otherwise it will say that perl is garbled. lol!
Click to expand...

I guess that was my problem too...

I think you need to recomplile al other modules too like mod_proxy and so.

Al my modules said they are garbled :X
 
@how@ said:
:)
./build mod_perl_ap2
did't work with Apache 2.2.3


Wael
Click to expand...

It works ;) Just need one command, if you need it - write me PM or ICQ, MSN, Skype.
 
Has anyone else experienced problems with exim acting up and causing the server to overload after upgrading apache 1.3.x to apache 2.0.x and then 2.2.3?

Well, that happened to me and i tried numerous restarts and I was left all confused because there were no spammers, not too many emails either. Finally, I did a recompile of Exim and it's all okay now.

http://help.directadmin.com/item.php?id=125
 
@rpan: I haven't noticed any performance improvements yet. I just upgraded to apache 2.2.3 and it seems the same to me. Will take a look a the graphs next week to see if there's any notable changes to the load.
 
smtalk said:
It works ;) Just need one command, if you need it - write me PM or ICQ, MSN, Skype.
Click to expand...

Why dont you share this with the rest of us?
 
felosi said:
Why dont you share this with the rest of us?
Click to expand...

Okay, that is very simple :)

Code: 
# ln -s /usr/bin/apr-1-config /usr/bin/apr-config

Good luck ;)
 
I tried to update to 2.2.3 once again but failed to start Apache... segmentation error.

First I updated to Apache 2.2.3
Recompiled PHP 5.2.0
Recompiled Perl
Recompiled mod_proxy

Then tried to start apache but bitched about mod_proxy so I uncommented that lines. After that Apache had a segmentation error and I could go back to 2.0.59 :(
 
Im getting the segmentation error too with 2.2.3 and the perl module, however httpd loads fine when I comment out loading perl in httpd.conf.

has anyone managed to solve this?
 
i don't use it before with apache 1.3.x & 2.0.x for security reason.
Click to expand...

What security reasons would you be referring too? 1.3 is use by more servers than 2.x is and if it had security concerns everyone would be scrambing to upgrade to 2.x. I dont see any advantage of upgrade from 1.3 in fact its not recommended by many control panel makers. I bet there are as many if not more security concerns running 2.x as with any other version.
 
pucky said:
What security reasons would you be referring too? 1.3 is use by more servers than 2.x is and if it had security concerns everyone would be scrambing to upgrade to 2.x. I dont see any advantage of upgrade from 1.3 in fact its not recommended by many control panel makers. I bet there are as many if not more security concerns running 2.x as with any other version.
Click to expand...

What your saying is that the 1.3.x line is more stable than 2.x and that's true because 2.x is pretty much all new code. So it's yet to be tested and go through it's wear and tear stages of life to get it to near perfection. If I was a control panel maker I'd drop Apache and go for something much more light weight such as lighttpd or litespeed web server.

@lethal0r: Did you recompile perl as well when you upgraded Apache? Mine installation works just fine, you just have to recompile perl and disable frontpage extensions.
 
yeah, even tried it with the latest mod_perl 2.0.3 but still the same, reading a few mailing lists it looks like quite a few people have the problem.

does anything that directadmin installs need mod_perl?
 
Apache needs it, you can always disable mod_perl by commenting out the Loadmodule /path/to/mod_perl
 
eymbo said:
If I was a control panel maker I'd drop Apache and go for something much more light weight such as lighttpd or litespeed web server.
Click to expand...
If you you'd probably never get a lot of customers who think apache is the only way to go.

Are all the modules most of us use/need available for lighttpd? For litespeed?

Additionally, litespeed can get quite expensive.

Jeff
 
jlasman said:
If you you'd probably never get a lot of customers who think apache is the only way to go.

Are all the modules most of us use/need available for lighttpd? For litespeed?

Additionally, litespeed can get quite expensive.

Jeff
Click to expand...

Not sure what you meant by if you you'd part. I don't think Apache is the way to go, I've ripped DirectAdmin to pieces before and have integrated it into lighty before. Not everything is automatic and not everything designed for Apache works but it's a start.

Yeah I agree with you on that one, there isn't much difference between litespeed and lighty so I'd go open source for sure.

Not all modules we use are in lighty, maybe DA staff can consider putting customers infront of money and time restraints it'll be a good investment.
 
I think what you're saying is that DA should create a control panel for the few folk who don't want to use the most popular webserver in the world.

Hmmm... I'm not sure if that would be a good investment or not. :D

Jeff
 
jlasman said:
I think what you're saying is that DA should create a control panel for the few folk who don't want to use the most popular webserver in the world.

Hmmm... I'm not sure if that would be a good investment or not. :D

Jeff
Click to expand...

Popular does not always mean better, just look at IE for example :p :D
 
I dont know if they have updated modules for both or not but I know I couldn't run apache 2.3.3 and/or php 5.20 because of incompatibility of the most popular and most needed modules on both.

I think Apache 2.0.59 and php 5.16 is good for now. I know there wasn't many security fixes for it seeing as the open base dir and safe mode bypasses still work from what I hear. I know I am using the suhosin extension from hardened-php.net and I wasnt able to exploit it. That suhosin has some killer options but incompatible with some sites. It has a cookie encryption variable where someone could not add your info to a cookie and login, some pretty cool stuff, go check it out
 
eymbo said:
Popular does not always mean better, just look at IE for example
Click to expand...
Not at all, but popular is what people want. Most people who compare hosting companies look down a list of things the hosting company has to have.

They know about Windows Hosting, they know about Apache Hosting. Those that know about Linux Hosting presume they're getting Apache Hosting.

Me? I just want to offer what customers want :) .

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top