Apache - Windows vs Linux

Michael L Torrie torriem at chem.byu.edu
Wed Jan 25 11:14:08 MST 2006


On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 09:58 -0700, Ryan Bowman wrote:
> We restarted apache and everything went back to normal.  That inspires
> some questions, is Apache as stable on Windows as Linux?  I'm going to install
> SuSE 10 on a server today so we can move towards switching, but is it really
> necessary?  How long can I expect Apache to run on Linux without being
> restarted?  How about on windows?  How much memory should apache be using if
> it's only serving images and passing everything else off to jboss? We are under
> the impression that when Jboss is restarted Apache will clean up the old
> connections to JBoss, so when we were restarting Jboss every day to incorporate
> new code changes we weren't always restarting Apache - now we don't
> have to restart jboss as often - should we always restart Apache when
> restarting jboss?

I think that Apache 2.0 is as stable on Windows as it is on linux.
However there probably are differences in the way Windows handles
resources.  Linux is much more forgiving with things like file locking
and stuff due to the inode file system.  This probably won't have much
to do with jboss connections, but it might.  

If it was me, I'd do a graceful restart of Apache after restarting
jboss.  You never know if Windows properly cleans up connections and
stuff, despite Apache's best intentions.  Somehow I doubt that if jboss
goes away that Apache knows to clean up mod_jk connections.

Despite all the bias around here that might claim the contrary, I'd be
very surprised if Apache 2.0 on 2003 server wasn't as good as Apache 2.0
on Linux or any BSD.  There are probably some performance differences,
but nothing major.  Apache is now a native Windows application (native
threads, etc).

Michael


> 
> /*
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */
> 




More information about the PLUG mailing list