Apache 1.3 vs Apache 2.0

DhoTjai

Verified User
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
80
Location
Netherlands
I wonder wich one is better.

Is it worth upgrading to 2.0?

What are your opinions about them? Performance/security etc
 

@how@

Verified User
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
962
Location
Kingdom of Bahrain
X-Hosted said:
As far as i can tell you, apache 2 has been a real pain for me.

Log limits, just goes down without an reason and needs to be restarted.:eek: my advise: stay with good old 1.3.x , wich i have done that too.
You need some tools to restart httpd when down every 1min.
work fine apache 2.2 in 5 server.
if you want tips about restart httpd reply here.



Wael
 

DamnSkippy

Verified User
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
273
Location
USA, Texas
I upgraded to Apache 2.0.59 a couple days ago (along with PHP 5) because an app a client needed to run required it.

I can confirm that Apache 2.0 does need to be restarted fairly often for some reason. I think I will move to Apache 2.2 as I do not need FP extensions on the server and see how it does.
 

Chrysalis

Verified User
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
1,584
Location
uk
some modules in particular mod_security work better with apache 2 but if you dont have modules that need apache 2 and stability is essential I still find apache 1.3 to give the least problems. On servers I have seen using apache 2.2 their is a good performance boost.
 

DhoTjai

Verified User
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
80
Location
Netherlands
I noticed apache 2.0xxx is faster then apache 1.3.37 (what a cool version!)

If I want to go back to 1337, will the httpd files stay 2.0 or convert to 1.3.37?
 

darkus

Verified User
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
114
Looks like the results are controversial, one account says Apache 2.2.2 is about 24% faster at serving PHP files while another says its 27% slower.
 
Top