logo
Apache Lounge
Webmasters

 


About

Forum Index Downloads Search Register Log in  RSS Apache Lounge
 


Keep Server Online

If you find the Apache Lounge, the downloads and overall help useful, please express your satisfaction with a donation.

or

Bitcoin

A donation makes a contribution towards the costs, the time and effort that's going in this site and building.

Thank You! Steffen

Apache Lounge is not sponsored.

Your donations will help to keep this site alive and well, and continuing building binaries.



Request for latest Apache 2.4 VC11 & PHP for windows 2K3

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Apache Forum Index -> Apache Building & Member Downloads



View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jimski



Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Posts: 194
Location: USSA

PostPosted: Fri 26 Dec '14 23:55    Post subject: Request for latest Apache 2.4 VC11 & PHP for windows 2K3 Reply with quote

Looks like there is support for C++ Visual Studio 2012 on Windows XP/2003
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2012/10/08/10357555.aspx

Is there a possibility to build the latest Apache 2.4 VC11 and PHP VC11 for windows XP/2003.

Apache running on Server 2003 still outperforms, in terms of requests/s , any other version of windows by margin of 30% or more while keeping the smallest footprint of less than 2GB of disk space and a memory usage of 50% of that required by later versions of windows.

In my opinion Win 2003 with some stack tuning is still the best platform to run a web server (on windows platform).


Last edited by jimski on Sun 28 Dec '14 5:25; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 578

PostPosted: Sat 27 Dec '14 11:58    Post subject: Reply with quote

We considered a way back. VC11 support for XP uses e.g. the VC 10 SDK and it results in no additionals in Apache executable. So it is not worth the effort.

Funny, what you say about 2003 that it is the best platform. In the ending days of Windows 2000 we had same kind of statements about 2000.
Back to top
jimski



Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Posts: 194
Location: USSA

PostPosted: Sun 28 Dec '14 3:50    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't be surprised if Apache on Win 2000 could outperform newer versions of windows because it was an OS with a small overhead just like win 2K3.
I actually performed a benchmark test on Win 2003, 2008 and 2012 and Win 2003 won hands down in both x86 and x64 configurations running Apache.

Newer versions of windows are just a bloatware unless you are running a Server Core bare bone version without any graphic interface but then one may as well run Linux. The only advantage of Win 2012 is better security and TCP/IP stack out of the box but a price for that is a 10 time larger disk usage and 10 times more memory just to start the damn thing.

Unless someone is running Hyper-V, I see absolutely no benefit in terms of webserver performance over win 2003.


Last edited by jimski on Sun 28 Dec '14 4:20; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
gijs



Joined: 27 Apr 2012
Posts: 189
Location: The Netherlands

PostPosted: Sun 28 Dec '14 4:00    Post subject: Reply with quote

That depends on the hardware you use..
Server 2012 R2 can be very fast and light weight on modern hardware.

If I remember correctly server 2012 introduced multi core support for the network stack, improving networking performance on multicore systems.
Back to top
jimski



Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Posts: 194
Location: USSA

PostPosted: Sun 28 Dec '14 4:09    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hardware is irrelevant. Apache on Win 2003 will outperform Apache on Win 2012 on any hardware except when using Hyper-V because 2012 allows assigning more cores per VM. Again the improved stack is irrelevant if Apache on win 2012 runs slow like molasses.

Maybe all those advertised multicore benefits are visible when running IIS but with Apache there is no gain. Not even mentioning that Apache can't serve multiple concurrent requests per process because mod_php will crash under heavy traffic and the most stable version of Apache as mod_fcgid can serve only one request at a time per php-cgi.exe process on windows.

Can you name one large website that uses Apache on windows as a main webserver?

Actually Apache's market share is falling despite the release of Apache 2.4.
Whopping 27% market share loss in the last 2 years, back to the level of 1996 before the dot com boom
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2014/02/03/february-2014-web-server-survey.html
Back to top
Jan-E



Joined: 09 Mar 2012
Posts: 921
Location: Amsterdam, NL, EU

PostPosted: Sun 28 Dec '14 20:14    Post subject: Reply with quote

PHP 5.5+ will never run on XP and W2k3. It links to functions of system libraries (like ws2_32.dll) that are not available on XP/W2K3.
http://markmail.org/message/fpaikhrnsem5wsa6

Apache VC9 still runs on XP. You can still compile PHP 5.5 with VC9, but even then it will only run on Win7+ and Win2k8+.

Edit BTW: IIS is mainly gaining of Apache because of a Chinese link farm.
Quote:
More than 70% of this month's new IIS-powered websites are hosted in the US, followed by 22% in China. Nearly 20 million of the new IIS sites in the US are hosted by a single company, Nobis Technology Group, which was also responsible for much of Microsoft's growth in February.
(...)
Many of the new IIS sites hosted by Nobis Technology Group feature similar content and form part of a Chinese link farm.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2014/04/02/april-2014-web-server-survey.html
Back to top
glsmith
Moderator


Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 2185
Location: Sun Diego, USA

PostPosted: Sun 28 Dec '14 21:23    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find that a sad excuse. How on earth does Apache run on XP/2k3? In this case these functions are supplied by APR (inet_pton, inet_ntop). PHP could have surely supplied their own had they wanted to.

Of course the php developer on windows works for MS so it doesn't surprised me any.
Back to top
jimski



Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Posts: 194
Location: USSA

PostPosted: Mon 29 Dec '14 12:06    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jan-E wrote:

Edit BTW: IIS is mainly gaining of Apache because of a Chinese link farm.

Well... does it really matter if those are Chinese link farms or so called "legitimate" American sites? Some web developer made a conscious decision to use IIS and not Apache and whether she is a Chinese link farmer Razz or not the end result is the same that Apache market share is falling. And let's not forget Nginx which now has 15% marker share and is growing rapidly.

And there is also another good reason for all of it. The old mod_fastcgi on windows 2k3 and Apache 2.2 was capable of serving multiple concurrent requests per process which was a decent solution for running a webserver. Now the new mod_fcgid can't do that on Win 2012. So link farmers and many others use IIS or Nginx rather than Apache.

glsmith wrote:
I find that a sad excuse. How on earth does Apache run on XP/2k3? In this case these functions are supplied by APR (inet_pton, inet_ntop). PHP could have surely supplied their own had they wanted to.

I totally agree. There are people writing entire high performance web servers for Win 2k3 capable of serving 70,000 concurrent connections yet php 5.5 won't run on xp/2k3.
http://www.lenholgate.com/blog/2005/11/windows-tcpip-server-performance.html
And look at the date of this article "2005". So 10 years ago some guy could serve 70K concurrent connections on win 2k3 with 760MB of RAM on a single core hardware while today Apache on Win 2012 even with hundreds of gigs or RAM and multiple CPU cores sucks so badly that no respectable website want's to use it.

BTW, Microsoft made many efforts to force people to buy the new OS. If it wasn't for public outcry and a year of complaints and begging on MS forums, MS wouldn't even provide support for VS11 C++ on XP/2k3 at all. So no wonder that people question motives of some php developers and their ties to Microsoft.
Let's don't forget that MS was thinking about buying Zend and the cozy ties run very deep.
http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2006103102426NWMSDV

http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Israel-among-most-corrupt-of-OECD-countries-319315 (Zend/PHP is own by Israelis)
http://www.mintpressnews.com/feds-investigate-microsoft-over-foreign-bribery-claims-corruption-cases-on-the-rise/54620/
Back to top
jimski



Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Posts: 194
Location: USSA

PostPosted: Mon 29 Dec '14 15:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

And what's even more funny that according to http://browserspy.dk/webserver.php even ApacheLounge.com website runs on IIS Mr. Green

And I totally understand!
Back to top
Jan-E



Joined: 09 Mar 2012
Posts: 921
Location: Amsterdam, NL, EU

PostPosted: Mon 29 Dec '14 15:38    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apachelounge runs both. Just after the migration to XS4ALL in November I also saw Apache. Netstat reports a mixed history:
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=apachelounge.com
Back to top
Jan-E



Joined: 09 Mar 2012
Posts: 921
Location: Amsterdam, NL, EU

PostPosted: Mon 29 Dec '14 15:47    Post subject: Reply with quote

glsmith wrote:
I find that a sad excuse. How on earth does Apache run on XP/2k3? In this case these functions are supplied by APR (inet_pton, inet_ntop). PHP could have surely supplied their own had they wanted to.

They had their own and still have it in PHP 5.4. See http://www.apachelounge.com/viewtopic.php?p=23273#23273

I borrowed Fsaber's idea and had to tweak a lot. Never say never:
https://phpdev.toolsforresearch.com/php-5.5.20-nts-Win32-VC9-x86.zip
https://phpdev.toolsforresearch.com/php-5.5.20-Win32-VC9-x86.zip

Built and running on Windows NT XP220 5.1 build 2600 (Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3) i586, see the phpinfo.htm inside the zips.
Back to top
glsmith
Moderator


Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 2185
Location: Sun Diego, USA

PostPosted: Mon 29 Dec '14 19:30    Post subject: Reply with quote

@jimski

Yes it does matter. Just cause some chinese chick decided to use IIS for her link farm really does mean nothing. Netcraft itself is just domains, I wonder what the real server number would be if they chose IPs over domains and pumped out that data. Real number of servers running each, Apache might be well further embedded that you think, or less than I think, we'll not know.

As for major websites on Apache on windows, that meta data is not available. It probably is but it's for a price. Then again, who knows if ServerTokens aren't set to full or OS.

Then there is mod_security and mod_bikeshed. I can make my server say it is anything I want, or even nothing at all.

As far as I know IIS here is the front end to an Apache back end, I may be wrong but Steffen does like to experiment. I remember he did that when OpenSSL had some major vulnerability but that Win's ssl didn't.
Back to top
Steffen
Moderator


Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 2710
Location: Hilversum, NL, EU

PostPosted: Mon 29 Dec '14 20:02    Post subject: Reply with quote

@glsmith, indeed iis (via ARR) http and https in front of apache.

HTTP Response Header Apache Lounge:

X-Powered-By: Apache/2.4.10 (Win64)
X-Powered-By: ARR/2.5
Server: Microsoft-IIS/8.5
Back to top
glsmith
Moderator


Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 2185
Location: Sun Diego, USA

PostPosted: Mon 29 Dec '14 20:25    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jan,

Cool, runs well so far on 2k3R2 and thanks for the inet_ntop test file.
Back to top
jimski



Joined: 18 Jan 2014
Posts: 194
Location: USSA

PostPosted: Mon 29 Dec '14 23:14    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jan-E wrote:

I borrowed Fsaber's idea and had to tweak a lot. Never say never:
https://phpdev.toolsforresearch.com/php-5.5.20-nts-Win32-VC9-x86.zip
https://phpdev.toolsforresearch.com/php-5.5.20-Win32-VC9-x86.zip


Thanks Jan-E. As always your builds kick the rear suspension unit (aka ass).
Are you planning to provide the latest php builds for win XP/2003 in the future or is it just one time deal ?

glsmith wrote:
As far as I know IIS here is the front end to an Apache back end...


Very nice recovery glsmith, the position of the white house press secretary is definitely within your reach.

Guys, you are doing an excellent job compiling Apache and PHP for windows so it really doesn't matter what web server you are using for the delivery. And if IIS is the better choice for the front end then this only shows that you know what you are doing.
Back to top
Jan-E



Joined: 09 Mar 2012
Posts: 921
Location: Amsterdam, NL, EU

PostPosted: Fri 02 Jan '15 19:50    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.apachelounge.com/viewtopic.php?t=6334
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Apache Forum Index -> Apache Building & Member Downloads
Page 1 of 1