Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news3.cac.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!rutgers!news.new-york.net!nonexistent.com!not-for-mail From: le@put.com (Louis Epstein) Subject: Re: Apache and FreeBSD versions X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] X-Nntp-Posting-User: le Lines: 58 Organization: Putnam Internet Services Message-ID: <E2tw30.JKp@nonexistent.com> References: <E2FwC0.4yy@nonexistent.com> <E2MKzC.Ks7@nonexistent.com> <32BCF239.683B@www.play-hookey.com> X-Trace: 851280299/24737 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: main.put.com Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:45:00 GMT Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:32853 Ken Bigelow (kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com) wrote: : Louis Epstein wrote: : > : > Louis Epstein (le@put.com) wrote: : > : Recent discussions of Apache and FreeBSD vs. Netscape etc. made me look : > : in /usr/ports/distfiles to see what version of Apache I had,I installed : > : it when I just got my FreeBSD 2.1 running and haven't looked since. : > : : > : I have 1.0.0. : > : : > : Some time ago I copied a new Ports Collection onto my HD,which specifies : > : version 1.0.5,but I don't know if trying to install this would work,as : > : the file's likely not there any more...just like the link on the FreeBSD : > : Release Information Page(which still says the 2.1.6 release "will : > : probably occur in the next 2-3 months") announcement for 2.0 Alpha : > : gives a supposed link from which one could FTP FreeBSD 2.0A which of : > : course doesn't work! : > : : > : The current Ports Collection entry is apparently for 1.1.1. : > : : > : The version they are now hawking at www.apache.org is 1.2b2. : > : > This is now the one in the Ports Collection as of 12/17. : > : > : I'm wondering what I may gain by upgrading Apache,AND if doing : > : it before or after an upgrade of FreeBSD 2.1 to 2.1.6 would make : > : a difference...or what difference in performance might be attributable : > : to each change if I did both. : > : : > : I understand the previous discussion said 2.2,but not 2.1.6, : > : had been tweaked to run WWW faster,but in an ISP operation : > : environment stability's the key...I suppose that,with reference to the : > : mentioned caching program,Squid 1.0.22 would be a better bet than : > : 1.1.0. : : My priority is also stability. I'm running Apache 1.1.1 on FreeBSD 2.1R : with no problems. I will leave it this way for the present, to retain : that stability. I won't be upgrading to either 2.1.5 or 2.1.6 on the : server machine, with 2.2R just around the corner. As soon as I know 2.2 : is truly stable, I expect to upgrade to that platform, but I can't see : changing the platform every couple of months under my circumstances. 2.1.6 is,we have been told repeatedly,stabler than 2.2...the analogous release of 2.2 isn't due until summer '97.I've been running 2.1 since the end of '95,and if 2.1.6 is better,I figure it may be worth the upgrade hassle,while early 2.2.x won't be.(Just as I'd be likelier to go from 2.2.[max x] to 3.1 than to 3.0.) : For the same reason, I won't run the beta version of Apache. When : they're past the beta stage and have no little latent bugs surfacing : after releasing the next flavor of Apache, I'll look at upgrading that. : Fortunately, changing back to the older version of Apache is far less of : a problem than changing back to the older version of FreeBSD! Hmm,but now they have replaced 1.1.1 with 1.2b2 in the Ports Collection... so it's the beta or no upgrade from there. Any thoughts on Squid?