Mailing List Archive: Apache: Docs

Perception of bloat & complication

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

noodlet at gmail

Dec 13, 2007, 1:22 AM

Post #1 of 6 (1126 views)
Permalink

Perception of bloat & complication

Hey kids,

As well as spending far too much time in #apache I occasionally chip
in on the #rubyonrails irc channel. Quite frequently when people ask
questions about apache there the response is to use this or that other
web server/load balancer instead. Lighttpd, nginx & pound seem to be
popular alternative recommendations.

I've asked a few times why people say these things and the responses
tend to include:

* Apache's too complex to configure
* Apache's bloated
* Apache does too much stuff I don't need
* Apache's slow

Generally people make pains to say that the slowness thing is
perceived and not important, perhaps realising that they're talking in
a rails channel :-)

So I'm wondering what can be done about any of this. Perhaps:

* Remove obsolete modules from the default build
* Reduce the size of the default config files
* Document minimal/specialist configurations
* Make mod_proxy_balancer less confusing

The third option is the only one here I feel I can help with. Can I
have a show of hands on the idea of creating a section of the docs to
demonstrate minimal and specialist configurations? After all, there's
only *one* mandatory directive (Listen).

[ ] Yes please
[ ] No, because:
[ ] Meh

--
noodl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd

nick at webthing

Dec 13, 2007, 2:57 AM

Post #2 of 6 (1054 views)
Permalink

Re: Perception of bloat & complication [In reply to]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:22:44 +0000
"Vincent Bray" <noodlet [at] gmail> wrote:

> Hey kids,
>
> As well as spending far too much time in #apache I occasionally chip
> in on the #rubyonrails irc channel. Quite frequently when people ask
> questions about apache there the response is to use this or that other
> web server/load balancer instead. Lighttpd, nginx & pound seem to be
> popular alternative recommendations.

Bear in mind the demographic you're talking to there. They're exposed
to messages from evangelists for all these servers. Those messages are
"we're better than Apache because [compelling list of plausible
reasons]". Being the target of that kind of thing comes with the
territory of being an incumbent market leader.

> So I'm wondering what can be done about any of this. Perhaps:
>
> * Remove obsolete modules from the default build
> * Reduce the size of the default config files

That's mostly in the hands of the distro folks. They're more likely
to add extra guff in than to strip it down. Look at the number of
folks who come to us because apache won't start, and the culprit is
something like unique_id or digest_auth that most users will never use.
We've done what we can by making it modular.

> * Document minimal/specialist configurations

Perhaps the clever move would be to turn httpd into a product line.
Same software, different packages. Create a stripped-down version
and a configuration targetted specifically at the tasks the other
servers use to demonstrate their superiority. You could then repeat
the very benchmarks they publish :-)

> * Make mod_proxy_balancer less confusing

LOL! Not mod_rewrite, or LDAP, or DAV, or .... good grief, most of it!

> The third option is the only one here I feel I can help with. Can I
> have a show of hands on the idea of creating a section of the docs to
> demonstrate minimal and specialist configurations? After all, there's
> only *one* mandatory directive (Listen).
>
> [ ] Yes please
> [*] No, because:

It needs to be presented so the folks who've been exposed to
evangelism will notice. Instead of a specialist configuration,
call it httpd-light, httpd-rails, whatever.

That's a counterproposal. The documentation you speak of would be
an important part of that project.

--
Nick Kew

Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd

joshua at slive

Dec 13, 2007, 6:56 AM

Post #3 of 6 (1050 views)
Permalink

Re: Perception of bloat & complication [In reply to]

On Dec 13, 2007 5:57 AM, Nick Kew <nick [at] webthing> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:22:44 +0000
> "Vincent Bray" <noodlet [at] gmail> wrote:

> > So I'm wondering what can be done about any of this. Perhaps:
> >
> > * Remove obsolete modules from the default build
> > * Reduce the size of the default config files

The default config file for 2.2 is way reduced in size from earlier
versions. It could get a little smaller, but not much.

> > The third option is the only one here I feel I can help with. Can I
> > have a show of hands on the idea of creating a section of the docs to
> > demonstrate minimal and specialist configurations? After all, there's
> > only *one* mandatory directive (Listen).

I thought that was a primary purpose of the wiki.

Joshua.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd

tconley at gmail

Dec 13, 2007, 9:49 AM

Post #4 of 6 (1050 views)
Permalink

Re: Perception of bloat & complication [In reply to]

I don't chime in too often, but I spend a lot of time in #php #mysql
#javascript, etc on a few different IRC networks. I won't say 'often',
but I frequently hear mention of other web servers. The people that
know what they're talking about tend to shut them up and explain why
Apache is super-duper, but I do agree that sometimes apache can be
daunting. Since I mainly use Apache for a LAMP purpose, I've gotten
accustomed to using packages like xampp that do everything for you.

Problems with these packages is they do so many things without you
knowing, and you often are using too many modules than you need. I
don't consider this "bloatware" ala MS, as I don't see performance
slowing, but I'm also running Apache on some beasty servers.

Here's a stupid question: What are the available front-ends for
configuring Apache? I've used webmin, ispconfig, etc but it's fugly
and it not focused solely on Apache. I wonder if there could be two
different types of web-based configurators for apache:

(One) would be an online-survey on the Apache website where people are
asked what they want to do with apache, or what modules they need.
Then the binary download is prepared just for them (as these people
that don't know too much are definitely not going to be building this
thing themselves)

(Two) would be some web-interface running on their localhost on a
non-standard port that allows people complete control over the server.
I can't seem to find google, so I'll assume there's always many things
like this out there, but if they are... I don't know about them when I
look to download apache, so they either must not be marketted well, or
must suck. I'm thinking of an interface like PFSense (
http://www.pfsense.org/ ) has.

Where does tomcat fit into this mix?

On Dec 13, 2007 6:56 AM, Joshua Slive <joshua [at] slive> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2007 5:57 AM, Nick Kew <nick [at] webthing> wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:22:44 +0000
> > "Vincent Bray" <noodlet [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > > So I'm wondering what can be done about any of this. Perhaps:
> > >
> > > * Remove obsolete modules from the default build
> > > * Reduce the size of the default config files
>
> The default config file for 2.2 is way reduced in size from earlier
> versions. It could get a little smaller, but not much.
>
> > > The third option is the only one here I feel I can help with. Can I
> > > have a show of hands on the idea of creating a section of the docs to
> > > demonstrate minimal and specialist configurations? After all, there's
> > > only *one* mandatory directive (Listen).
>
> I thought that was a primary purpose of the wiki.
>
> Joshua.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd

jorge.schrauwen at gmail

Dec 13, 2007, 11:23 AM

Post #5 of 6 (1049 views)
Permalink

Re: Perception of bloat & complication [In reply to]

On Dec 13, 2007 10:22 AM, Vincent Bray <noodlet [at] gmail> wrote:

> Hey kids,
>
> As well as spending far too much time in #apache I occasionally chip
> in on the #rubyonrails irc channel. Quite frequently when people ask
> questions about apache there the response is to use this or that other
> web server/load balancer instead. Lighttpd, nginx & pound seem to be
> popular alternative recommendations.
>
> I've asked a few times why people say these things and the responses
> tend to include:
>
> * Apache's too complex to configure
> * Apache's bloated
> * Apache does too much stuff I don't need
> * Apache's slow
>
> Generally people make pains to say that the slowness thing is
> perceived and not important, perhaps realising that they're talking in
> a rails channel :-)
>
> So I'm wondering what can be done about any of this. Perhaps:
>
> * Remove obsolete modules from the default build
> * Reduce the size of the default config files
> * Document minimal/specialist configurations

I find the new config files in 2.2 a huge step forward compared to 2.0.
We could prove some fequently used configs on the wiki for example (thats
what its for isn't it ;))
But the problem with prividing a few base configs (minimal, rails optimazed,
proxy examples,...) is that they need to be maintained.

A update of mod_xyz may require to update most/some of the example configs
too. So thats a lot of work load.

But I do feel a small repo with a few ready to use in situation X or Y
config would be very welcome for al ot ofo users.

Just my to 2 cents

>
> * Make mod_proxy_balancer less confusing
>
> The third option is the only one here I feel I can help with. Can I
> have a show of hands on the idea of creating a section of the docs to
> demonstrate minimal and specialist configurations? After all, there's
> only *one* mandatory directive (Listen).
>
> [ ] Yes please
> [ ] No, because:
> [ ] Meh
>
> --
> noodl
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd
>
>

--
~Jorge

noodlet at gmail

Dec 14, 2007, 2:10 AM

Post #6 of 6 (1047 views)
Permalink

Re: Perception of bloat & complication [In reply to]

On 13/12/2007, Nick Kew <nick [at] webthing> wrote:
> Perhaps the clever move would be to turn httpd into a product line.
> Same software, different packages. Create a stripped-down version
> and a configuration targetted specifically at the tasks the other
> servers use to demonstrate their superiority. You could then repeat
> the very benchmarks they publish :-)

Interesting idea. There's a lot that could potentially be done to
specialise apache for rails:

* Chose a performant mpm (as there's no mod_php to kill threaded
processes when it falls over)
* Create a directive for the rule that's used to proxy requests for
non-existent files
* Strip out everything except proxy, mime & cache modules
* Some form of granular caching (for page fragments)
* Pipeline ajax requests [1]
* Hook mongrel's process lifecycle to apache's and allow for
configuring the mongrel process pool size

And if there's to be a third-party specialised distribution it could
bundle mod_security and its whizzy console gui and stuff like
mod_macro with pre-built template vhosts.

> > * Make mod_proxy_balancer less confusing
>
> LOL! Not mod_rewrite, or LDAP, or DAV, or .... good grief, most of it!

In this case proxy_balancer is pertinent as that's usually how rails
apps are deployed with apache (and mongrel), but you have a point :-)

> It needs to be presented so the folks who've been exposed to
> evangelism will notice. Instead of a specialist configuration,
> call it httpd-light, httpd-rails, whatever.

I'm not quite sure where this should sit in terms of what is
specialised, how it's distributed and what the relationship with
vanilla-apache would be. As you mentioned on irc, there's room for
debunutu to have an apache2-rails package with these specialisations,
given that they already package mpms separately.

I'll start simple with the wiki, for now.

[1] http://journal.paul.querna.org/articles/2007/03/20/reinventing-the-wheel/

--
noodl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help [at] httpd

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads