Do you still need Apache 1.3 or Apache 2.0?

[chrismfz]

1.3 reached EOL.
2.0 will reach it after 12 months from now that they announce 2.4.

By the way, now with 2.4 out and with so many improvements and changes why
people still need dead software ?

No more improvements on both 1.3 and 2.0 only critical security fixes and bug fixes.

FrontPage has been discontinued by Microsoft and the whole universe generally...
Anyone having ancient 90's websites can use DAV. FrontPage has an option to connect to a WebDav server.

+1 for 2.2 and 2.4 (in the near future)

[Kent Brockman]

This thread was created almost one year ago and still there is no resolution about what to do with Apache 1.3?

May WHM start to adquire anonymous stats of the usage of the different services, you would already figured out what to do.
IMHO, this thread should be pinned or highlighted in some way to retrieve more opinions.

Cheers

[cPanelDavidG]

This thread was created almost one year ago and still there is no resolution about what to do with Apache 1.3?

May WHM start to adquire anonymous stats of the usage of the different services, you would already figured out what to do.
IMHO, this thread should be pinned or highlighted in some way to retrieve more opinions.

Cheers

Apache 1.3 needs to go away sooner or later, let's all establish that as a reality. Realistically, we will make advanced notice etc, but Apache 1.3 going away is inevitable.

One of the reasons we're asking this question is to determine the "why" regarding why they still use Apache 1.3 or 2.0. As previously implied, this is not the only venue from which we are collecting this information. The feedback we have received has been enlightening. For example, one of our customers used an old version of Apache just because they liked our support of FastCGI better on the older Apache version, something we addressed in the latest EasyApache. They can now comfortably move to Apache 2.2 and likely Apache 2.4 once we support it. It's production scenarios like that which we are interested in learning about.

[vlee]

As Apache progresses the more secure it becomes and more features get added to make it preform faster and better than before as time goes on.

Apache 2.2 is very nice and I am looking forward to when Apache 2.4 comes out.

[almecho]

Well I for one will be sorry to see Apache 1.3 go. I understand the arguments for it being EOL and all that, but I've seen an instance recently (as in the last week) where an Apache 2.2 installation with fcgid configured on cPanel that was leaking memory so badly that it was causing OOM kernel errors by burning up over 3 gigs of what should have been available ram. Restart the httpd process and memory utilization was back to normal and then you went around again.

Downgraded that server to Apache 1.3 (as in tried, tested, almost unbreakable 1.3) and it hasn't missed a beat since, and you can't tell me that I need Apache 2.2 on a box that's only doing 10 to 15 hits per second.

The only reason I found this thread right now was because I was searching for known issues with Apache 2.2.22, as the Easyapache on another server is showing a rebuild within the last 5 days (presumably an auto upgrade) and which now with Apache and fcgid configured has started leaking ram like the other one. You just don't tend to see these sorts of bizarre issues cropping up with old and battle tested versions of software.

Just my 2 cents, YMMV.

[DomineauX]

Well I for one will be sorry to see Apache 1.3 go. I understand the arguments for it being EOL and all that, but I've seen an instance recently (as in the last week) where an Apache 2.2 installation with fcgid configured on cPanel that was leaking memory so badly that it was causing OOM kernel errors by burning up over 3 gigs of what should have been available ram. Restart the httpd process and memory utilization was back to normal and then you went around again.

Downgraded that server to Apache 1.3 (as in tried, tested, almost unbreakable 1.3) and it hasn't missed a beat since, and you can't tell me that I need Apache 2.2 on a box that's only doing 10 to 15 hits per second.

The only reason I found this thread right now was because I was searching for known issues with Apache 2.2.22, as the Easyapache on another server is showing a rebuild within the last 5 days (presumably an auto upgrade) and which now with Apache and fcgid configured has started leaking ram like the other one. You just don't tend to see these sorts of bizarre issues cropping up with old and battle tested versions of software.

Just my 2 cents, YMMV.

Have you tried Apache 2.0?

[cPanelDavidG]

Well I for one will be sorry to see Apache 1.3 go. I understand the arguments for it being EOL and all that, but I've seen an instance recently (as in the last week) where an Apache 2.2 installation with fcgid configured on cPanel that was leaking memory so badly that it was causing OOM kernel errors by burning up over 3 gigs of what should have been available ram. Restart the httpd process and memory utilization was back to normal and then you went around again.

Downgraded that server to Apache 1.3 (as in tried, tested, almost unbreakable 1.3) and it hasn't missed a beat since, and you can't tell me that I need Apache 2.2 on a box that's only doing 10 to 15 hits per second.

The only reason I found this thread right now was because I was searching for known issues with Apache 2.2.22, as the Easyapache on another server is showing a rebuild within the last 5 days (presumably an auto upgrade) and which now with Apache and fcgid configured has started leaking ram like the other one. You just don't tend to see these sorts of bizarre issues cropping up with old and battle tested versions of software.

Just my 2 cents, YMMV.

I advise also submitting a support ticket/bug report (if you haven't already done so) so we can investigate the cause of that fcgid issue and fix it, rather than letting it persist due to us not encountering it in our formal testing nor informal use of the software.

Note, EasyApache is never run automatically with exception of when cPanel&WHM is installed onto a freshly provisioned server.

[Deroba]

I'm using 2.2 expecting 2.4

[TheVisitors]

Speaking as a member of Anonymous and as an Administrator.

I'd suggest Apache 2.4 as soon as possible.

I'd also suggest the option for Nginx.

[dritan1]

I did the same I switched to 2.2 almost as soon as it was available on EasyApache, and I'm considering abandon support for PHP 4 in our server for 2012.

[Kent Brockman]

I did the same I switched to 2.2 almost as soon as it was available on EasyApache, and I'm considering abandon support for PHP 4 in our server for 2012.

Yes, it's the trend. We already abandoned PHP 4 support but had to advice people on how to migrate their scripts to PHP5. The feature I'm waiting for is the dual support for PHP 5.2 and PHP 5.3/4 in order to be able to gradually migrate those old PHP5.2 scripts to the new version. We embraced MySQL 5.5 too

[Juanzo]

Using 2.2, expecting 2.4 and / or adding nginx as an alternative on EA. Not using 1.3 in any server for a while already.