From http://www.serverwatch.com/server-news/ ... mance.html

"We also show that as far as true performance is based - real-world performance as seen by the end-user- 2.4 is as fast, and even faster than some of the servers who may be "better" known as being "fast", like nginx," Jagielski said.

James

Nobody said that Apache was slow. If requests per second is what counts, even Apache 2.2 performs almost as well as nginx does. The real question is, how much CPU and RAM does Apache vs. nginx consume when handling an equivalent amount of traffic? The article doesn't seem to mention that, and RAM consumption is of the utmost importance for a lot of Linoders.

Apache also suffers from the lack of a simple, works-out-of-the-box FastCGI handler that lighttpd and nginx have had for a long time. Setting up Apache with PHP-FPM still feels like a dirty hack, with "AddHandler" and "Action" and all that boilerplate code. The pointless split between mod_fastcgi and mod_fcgid doesn't help, either. All of this contributes to the continued popularity of the abominable setup that is mod_php, which doesn't help Apache's reputation one bit.

Edit: The new mod_proxy_fcgi looks like a promising way to simplify FastCGI handling in Apache.

The changelog details some of the features added: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/new_features_2_4.html

mod_sed (sed against input and output), mod_ratelimit (per Location), and mod_log_debug (set log verbosity per Location or module) all look pretty cool (depending on your definition of "cool" -- mod_sed looks cool in that "yikes" way.)

They've added a fcgistarter script now, and the mod_rewrite documentation looks refreshed too. Fun stuff!

I wonder how long cPanel will take to add it into the EasyApache feature in WHM...