Apache Site: www.apache.org
Release: 1.3.6 (Released 25th March 1999)
Apache 1.3.6 is the current stable release. Users of Apache
1.3.4 and earlier on Unix systems should upgrade to this
version. Read the Guide to
1.3.6 for information about changes between 1.3.4 and
1.3.6 and between 1.2 and 1.3.6.
Most bugs listed below include a link to the entry in the
Apache bug database where the problem is being tracked. These
entries are called "PR"s (Problem Reports). Some bugs do not
correspond to problem reports if they are found by
These bugs have been found in 1.3.6 and will be fixed in the
Because of the major differences between Windows and Unix,
these are separated into bugs which affect Windows systems
only, and other bugs (which may affect Windows as well). Unix
users can ignore the bugs listed in the Windows section.
htpasswd.exe was only
using the first eight characters of the password.
Patches for bugs in Apache 1.3.6 will be made available in
the apply_to_1.3.6 subdirectory of the patches
directory on the Apache site. Some new features and other
unofficial patches are available in the 1.3
patches directory. For details of all previously reported
bugs, see the Apache bug
database and known
bugs pages. Many common configuration questions are
answered in the Apache FAQ.
The SetEnv directive
can be used to set environment variables which are then
available to CGI programs and SSIs. This directive is
currently only available in the main server configuration and
virtual hosts, but not in containers such as <Directory> or in .htaccess
files. From the next release of Apache, SetEnv, UnSetEnv and PassEnv will all be available for
use in per-directory locations as well.
have recently released a report
comparing the performance of Apache on Linux against IIS
running on NT. They also tested Samba (for file sharing) on
Linux against NT's built-in file sharing. Their summary of
the results is: Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5
times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster
as a Web Server.
This result is significantly different to other performance
tests. For example, ZDNET's own tests showed Samba beating NT
The Best Windows File Server: Linux! and
Samba 2.0: A License To Kill NT?, and Linux beating NT
for web serving in
Linux Is The Web Server's Choice. Looking at the
MindCraft tests in detail, it is clear that they compared a
heavily tuned and optimised NT system against a sub-optimal
Linux configuration. It is also notable that the MindCraft
test was paid for by Microsoft, and that MindCraft state:
"With our custom performance testing service, we work
with you to define test goals. Then we put together the
necessary tools and do the testing. We report the results
back to you in a form that satisfies the test goals".
It is usually always possible to come up with performance
tests that show one particular application out-performing
another, because applications can be tuned to perform will in
a test environment. It is not surprising that a test can be
found which shows IIS having better performance than Apache,
since Apache concentrates on getting good performance in real
world situations. In contrast, servers optimised for tests
will give good performance in situations where there are very
quick low-latency connections to clients.
Even allowing for the performance difference expected because
the tests do not simulate the real use of a server, there are
significant flaws in the test environment that make these
results unreliable. A number of reactions to the report have
been produced: A look
at the Mindcraft report and Mindcraft
Reality Check both contain detailed and reasoned
arguments. ZDNet has reported on the controvesy in
NT beats Linux ... maybe.
MindCraft performed expert tuning on their NT system to get
the best performance. They extensively configured NT and IIS,
for example, by modifing the NT registry to get best
performance against local network clients. By contrast, they
picked a Linux kernel version which had known performance
problems when used against Windows clients. They also used a
RAID disk controller which is not fully supported by Linux.
In Samba, they turned on an option which was unnecessary, but
results in significantly lower performance. These are just
some examples of the ways in which the tests were heavily
weighted in favour of NT.
It is clear from the MindCraft report that they have designed
a complete environment where NT was bound to win the
performance tests. This cannot be described as unbiased. If
MindCraft were interested in publishing accurate unbiased
results they should perform these tests again, optimising the
Linux, Samba and Apache hardware and software in they same
way they optimised the IIS and NT hardware and software in