Apache 2.0 worth the upgrade? 1

[LordofShadowz]

Iam still using the 1.3 series of apache, now i feel like the major kinks have been worked out of 2.0, but I ask this why fix whats not broken. Are there any major improvements from 1.3 for a server running on win2k?

 

[zoomforce]

idont think so I tried it and all my vhosts configs got srewed up and webmin didnt work so i went back.

 

[wushutwist]

Main differences are performance based. If you are not happy with your current configuration then I don't think there is any need to change. If/when the 1.3 branch is no longer being supported then you should definitely switch.

 

[rycamor]

I hate to say this, but don't listen to these people. There are major differences. Performance is definitely improved for Windows servers, but that is really the least of the changes.

1. Input/output filters: this alone is a major advance over every other webserver out there. It allows for output from module A, such as PHP, to then be filtered through Module B, such as mod_perl, and then for THAT output to be filtered through Module C, such as SSI. Each of these modules can essentially treat the output of the previous module as if it were a file to be parsed. The implications of this have not even begun to be explored.

2. Ability to run in several different modes, such as threaded, process-based, hybrid (processes+threads). This greatly affects possibilities for scaleability, which is not the same thing as performance.

3. Streamlined configuration system (yes, it won't necessarily just "work" with your old httpd.conf. You will have to learn some new things. Get used to it.) Webmin is a nice tool, but it's not ready for Apache 2, and serious sysadmins shouldn't need Webmin anyway.

4. Multi-protocol support. It's not just a webserver, and it's not just limited to serving HTTP. Again, possibilities not really explored by many people yet.

Etc... See the whole list of major changes at

http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/new_features_2_0.html

Should you upgrade? Not if you don't want to learn anything new, and if evenything you have is working just fine for your needs. But, if you want to be ready for the future of serious webserving, you should pick up Apache 2.x sometime. Also, in my experience, performance on Win2K is an order of magnitude greater than Apache 1.3. In fact, Apache 2 brings all the speed of IIS to Win2K with none of the security problems ;-). -------------------------------------------

"Now, this might cause some discomfort..."
(

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51274,00.html)

 

[pfouts]

I installed both 2.0.39 and 1.3.26 versions on win2k last week. I decided to use 1.x because the 2.x version wouldn't launch the pdf viewer when I attemped to open it from the web site. I searched everywhere, and couldn't find 2.0.39 info on setting this up to work.

 

[danielhozac]

Did you try adding this line to your httpd.conf:
AddType application/x-pdf .pdf
I'm not sure about the MIME type, but you could try that. //Daniel

 

[rycamor]

It is not the webserver but the browser that handles the decision whether to launch PDF. The webserver merely sends the content header to the browser.

Look in [apache_dir]/conf/magic and [apache_dir]/conf/mime.types. In both files there should be a line describing PDF handling. If that line is not there, it should be added:

magic:

0	string		%PDF-		application/pdf

mime.types:

application/pdf		pdf

NOTE: get the latest version of Apache (2.0.40), because there is a fairly serious vulnerability for Windows server from the previous version. -------------------------------------------

"Now, this might cause some discomfort..."
(

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51274,00.html)

 

[pfouts]

I checked, and I already had these set:
magic:
0 string %PDF- application/pdf
mime.types:
application/pdf pdf

I didn't have this set:
httpd.conf:
AddType application/x-pdf .pdf (THAT FIXED IT!!)

And I will download and try 2.0.40

Thanks for the help!