Return to BSD News archive
#! rnews 4034 bsd 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!news From: Ken Bigelow <kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Apache and FreeBSD versions Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 20:39:55 +0000 Organization: Erol's Internet Services Lines: 72 Message-ID: <32BEEE1B.7EA4@www.play-hookey.com> References: <E2FwC0.4yy@nonexistent.com> <E2MKzC.Ks7@nonexistent.com> <32BCF239.683B@www.play-hookey.com> <E2tw30.JKp@nonexistent.com> <32BD916C.4B5F@www.play-hookey.com> <E2uMxK.5z2@nonexistent.com> Reply-To: kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com NNTP-Posting-Host: kenjb05.play-hookey.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:32951 Louis Epstein wrote: > > Ken Bigelow (kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com) wrote: > : Louis Epstein wrote: [snip some older stuff...] > : > : > : 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. > > [just replaced by 1.1.1 in the past week...yes,1.1.0 was buggy] It happens everywhere. That's why I tend to sit back and wait while the dust settles. > > : > : 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.) > : > : You're right, of course. And it's also true that 2.1.6 has some > : capabilities not present in 2.1R. We'll see; I've been planning on > : upgrading the hardware as well as the FreeBSD OS. I expect I'll get the > : new hardware first; I've been considering going to a PCI board. But my > : 33.6K dialup is still the primary bottleneck... > > Meaning you run a WWW server on the customer end of a dialup? > (I run an ISP with a 384K line,customers presently dialing in at > 28.8 though expansion will be 33.6K or ISDN or some combination). Yep. I paid for a 24/7 connection and a static 32-node Class C subnet; this lets me have a server/gateway and still hook my little home network to it. I made the server box be the gateway as well, so that packets from outside don't have to fight their way over my 10B2 Ethernet as well. It's not superfast, but it works and is quite stable. > > My next motherboard/CPU will be PCI,I suppose...current set is > VLB at its max(486 DX4-120). Mine is close to that. It's currently a 486DX-50 running at full speed, with a VLB 6-pack I/O card. I have one more motherboard with the AMD 5x86-133 (overclockable to 160 MHz), and at the computer show last Sunday I saw Western Digital Caviar drives -- the 33100 (3.1 GB) for $299. They're getting cheaper by the day! > > : > : As for Squid, I've seen references to both it and CERN cache in my > : agent_log file, but I haven't tried it, and so have no opinion. > > See http://squid.nlanr.net/Squid for their claims. Thanks, I will. But I bet they still can't speed up that 33.6K link! -- Ken Are you interested in | byte-sized education | http://www.play-hookey.com over the Internet? |