Do you still need Apache 1.3 or Apache 2.0?

[cPanelDavidG]

According to a recent unscientific poll here on the forums, as of posting, over 91% of you are currently using Apache 2.2. You can view the results at:

http://forums.cpanel.net/f362/apache...se-190291.html

Given that Apache 2.4 is on the horizon and it takes substantial development resources to continue supporting Apache 1.3 (which was EOL'd over a year ago) and 2.0 in addition to Apache 2.2, we are wondering if it would be okay to just discontinue Apache 1.3 and 2.0 support since it seems so few people are using it.

This is just a request for information, not a commitment to discontinue support for any Apache versions. Currently, we intend to continue to support Apache 1.3 and 2.0 for the foreseeable future. However, information collected in this thread will inform us if we need to re-evaluate our expenditure of development resources on Apache 1.3 and 2.0 over other feature requests submitted via the forums. For now, we just want to establish a dialogue about ongoing support for Apache 1.3 and 2.0.

I understand some prefer Apache 1.3 over 2.0 because of the performance advantages of 1.3 over 2.0, but 2.2 seems to have better performance than 2.0 and with Apache 2.4 on the horizon, there doesn't seem to be much reason to continue supporting Apache 1.3. If we are incorrect in this assumption, please provide details as we are not aware of how everyone configures their server and there may be very good reasons for continuing to run Apache 1.3 that we are currently unaware of.

As for Apache 2.0, it seems those that preferred Apache 2.0 have since moved to Apache 2.2. However, you may be aware of a very good reason for continuing to support Apache 2.0 (not to be confused with Apache 2.2 or the forthcoming Apache 2.4) in cPanel&WHM that we are currently not aware of, so please let us know if you have a good reason for continuing to use Apache 2.0 for the foreseeable future.

Any information you can provide would be appreciated. If support for only Apache 2.2 and Apache 2.4 (when Apache 2.4 is released) is acceptable with regards to Apache versions, feel welcome to vocalize your feedback in favor of that option as well.

[Kent Brockman]

In despite of the poll results, you guys should check your server stats to see what are the most frequently downloaded packages with EasyApache. Probably a poll is a good idea to take the pulse and opinion, but it still have not enough votes to take a corporate decision . Also, take in account that, i.e., I found this thread fortuitously and I can see that nobody answered to it in more than 10 days...

For a serious approach, IMHO, I would take the download data of the several available versions of Apache by EasyApache for the last 12 months and load those totals in a pretty Excel graph to see if there is a real tendence to abandon Apache 1.3 and 2.0, because you cannot be absolutely aware of what other users are doing. At the same time, you may place a note in the EasyApache screen at WHM to let admins know about future plans to abandon Apache 1.3 and 2.0. In the best scenario, I would support those versions until Apache 2.4 is finally released and checked as stable in cPanel changelog.

Personally, 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.

[mtindor]

I do still need Apache 1.3.x, at least for one server. And that is only because the last time I tried to switch was when 2.0 was first out and Frontpage broke (it was compiled in but just broken). I switched back to 1.3.x and left it there.

Only one server that I take care of requires Frontpage, and thus it's the only one on Apache 1.3.x. If I knew for a fact that I could simply switch to Apache 2.2.x with teh same exact options and existing Frontpage sites would continue to work without ANY problems, I'd switch in a heartbeat. I prefer Apache 2.2.x for multiple reasons. I just don't like switching and finding Frontpage breaking [and requiring customer intervention for them to fix what broke]. It happened so long ago that I can't remember the specifics, but basically it was a deal where I switched to 2.0 with Frontpage and new FP sites could be set up -- but pre-existing Frontpage sites were broke and required the customer to actually republish the sites. I don't want to see it happen again.

Should I be able to switch to Apache 2.2 with Frontpage and expect no problems with existing Frontpage sites when I do that? If so, I'd certainly go that route and be done with Apache 1.3.x for good. I'd like to be done with Frontpage for good as well, but that isn't going to happen soon. We keep one server around just for those customers who demand Frontpage.

Mike

[cPanelDavidG]

In despite of the poll results, you guys should check your server stats to see what are the most frequently downloaded packages with EasyApache. Probably a poll is a good idea to take the pulse and opinion, but it still have not enough votes to take a corporate decision . Also, take in account that, i.e., I found this thread fortuitously and I can see that nobody answered to it in more than 10 days...

For a serious approach, IMHO, I would take the download data of the several available versions of Apache by EasyApache for the last 12 months and load those totals in a pretty Excel graph to see if there is a real tendence to abandon Apache 1.3 and 2.0, because you cannot be absolutely aware of what other users are doing. At the same time, you may place a note in the EasyApache screen at WHM to let admins know about future plans to abandon Apache 1.3 and 2.0. In the best scenario, I would support those versions until Apache 2.4 is finally released and checked as stable in cPanel changelog.

Personally, 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.

I suppose my OP should have been clearer. We are seeking scenarios where use of Apache 1.3 continues to be a requirement, rather than a system administrator's preference.

Do you know if there is a way that download stats could differentiate preference from requirement?

[cPanelDavidG]

I do still need Apache 1.3.x, at least for one server. And that is only because the last time I tried to switch was when 2.0 was first out and Frontpage broke (it was compiled in but just broken). I switched back to 1.3.x and left it there.

Only one server that I take care of requires Frontpage, and thus it's the only one on Apache 1.3.x. If I knew for a fact that I could simply switch to Apache 2.2.x with teh same exact options and existing Frontpage sites would continue to work without ANY problems, I'd switch in a heartbeat. I prefer Apache 2.2.x for multiple reasons. I just don't like switching and finding Frontpage breaking [and requiring customer intervention for them to fix what broke]. It happened so long ago that I can't remember the specifics, but basically it was a deal where I switched to 2.0 with Frontpage and new FP sites could be set up -- but pre-existing Frontpage sites were broke and required the customer to actually republish the sites. I don't want to see it happen again.

Should I be able to switch to Apache 2.2 with Frontpage and expect no problems with existing Frontpage sites when I do that? If so, I'd certainly go that route and be done with Apache 1.3.x for good. I'd like to be done with Frontpage for good as well, but that isn't going to happen soon. We keep one server around just for those customers who demand Frontpage.

Mike

I remember a very long time ago when Apache 2.0 was first supported we were having some problems with FrontPage. I just spoke with our techs and we haven't heard any issues with upgrading Apache in a long time, let alone anything specifically about FrontPage extensions. I can understand your nervousness about moving to Apache 2.2 as a result of your prior experience. Perhaps you may want to submit a technical support ticket to our technical analysts so we can be prepared to assist if FrontPage extensions break for some reason under Apache 2.2.

[DomineauX]

For what it's worth, I haven't seen any issues with FrontPage Extension on Apache 2.2 including migrated accounts (from EnXim with Apache 2.0) or accounts that start out fresh on cPanel.

[Kent Brockman]

Do you know if there is a way that download stats could differentiate preference from requirement?

Well, Apache 1.3 is not a "requirement", as the most used software nowadays will work well with Apache 2.0. I don't remember the switch from 1.3 to 2.0 and then to 2.2 as a pain. In fact, it was a fresh new start with a fast and improved version of Apache. In despite of requirement, it still may exist a "preference" from some admins, maybe due to laziness, or to avoid upgrading scripts to new versions, maybe because they've made complex customizations that will roll back if upgrading, you never know.
The point is that cPanel is used by thousands of servers and the "requirement" cannot supercede the "preference" based on the result of a poll with less than 100 readers. It's a quite small sample of data, and unscientific, as you stated from the beginning.


I vote for the add of a warning in the Easy Apache screens, to make aware admins that Apache 1.3 and 2.0 will be soon abandoned, and that they have to consider upgrading necessary scripts to make them compatible with Apache 2.2 (99% of them will be compatible), and provide the most automated solutions to troubleshoot known problems (like those reported with Frontpage being broken after upgrading).

[cPanelDavidG]

I vote for the add of a warning in the Easy Apache screens, to make aware admins that Apache 1.3 and 2.0 will be soon abandoned, and that they have to consider upgrading necessary scripts to make them compatible with Apache 2.2 (99% of them will be compatible), and provide the most automated solutions to troubleshoot known problems (like those reported with Frontpage being broken after upgrading).

If and when we decide to drop Apache 1.3 and 2.0, that sounds like a prudent thing to do. However, we are not committed to dropping Apache 1.3 or 2.0 yet. Just gathering some information right now .

[Kent Brockman]

Fine. Let's gathering go on

[mtindor]

I remember a very long time ago when Apache 2.0 was first supported we were having some problems with FrontPage. I just spoke with our techs and we haven't heard any issues with upgrading Apache in a long time, let alone anything specifically about FrontPage extensions. I can understand your nervousness about moving to Apache 2.2 as a result of your prior experience. Perhaps you may want to submit a technical support ticket to our technical analysts so we can be prepared to assist if FrontPage extensions break for some reason under Apache 2.2.

David,

Thanks for that suggestion. I have put this task on my near-future To-Do list again. Other than my concern over the FP extensions, I have no conceivable reason to be still runningg 1.3.x on anything that I maintain other than for the FP issue and would certainly be glad to be running the same configurations on all machines across the board. Incidentally, if i recall correctly it was Apache 2.0 that I switched to and had I chosen to remain on that rather than reverting back, the only way to get customer sites working again was for them to re-publish. However, simply reverting back to 1.3 was successful and that's why I reverted and stayed there.

You guys are tops!

Mike

[crazyaboutlinux]

Apache 2.2 & of course next release! We always used released version of each products

[DjiXas]

No, Apache 1.3 should be discontinued because IT IS discontinued.

It's like offering a rotten pie to your customers.

I would also drop 2.0, because of all the 2.0 > 2.2 upgrades, none of them broke something. So it just makes sense to use 2.2.

It's all about your priorities, cPanel. Whether you want to sacrifice new tech development for the old one or not (which sounds insane).

[mykkal]

According to a recent unscientific poll here on the forums, as of posting, over 91% of you are currently using Apache 2.2. You can view the results at:

http://forums.cpanel.net/f362/apache...se-190291.html

Given that Apache 2.4 is on the horizon and it takes substantial development resources to continue supporting Apache 1.3 (which was EOL'd over a year ago) and 2.0 in addition to Apache 2.2, we are wondering if it would be okay to just discontinue Apache 1.3 and 2.0 support since it seems so few people are using it....

My opinion is that yes 1.3 was a great release but it has reached end of life. I'm not sure there's a good logical reason to support a product the manufacturer will no longer support.

I think supporting two versions behind is a good idea...assuming that neither of those versions has reached EOL. I would still keep supporting 2.0. You do have enterprise level clients that need legacy support. It just sounds like a good idea until 2.0 reaches EOL.

[PbG]

We have a few customers who use older custom versions of vb which they can not afford to pay someone else to recode so that the same are compatible with current versions of vb. As a result we kept one (1) server available for said customers. Accordingly I would not like to see support for 1.3, or 2.0 dissipate at this time.

[cPanelDavidG]

By vb you mean vBulletin?