1 Oct
2012
1 Oct
'12
5:04 a.m.
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Mouse wrote:
With Apache the gold standard when it comes to public facing web
servers, and with constantly changing links and the need for reducing
support emails, who in their right mind /doesn't/ use Apache along
with stuff such as mod_rewrite these days?
Perhaps I'm just not in my right mind, then - I use bozohttpd. I
wouldn't go _near_ apache; it includes far too much stuff I have no
need for and therefore do not want in my exposed attack surface.
But, what are you using the web server for?
Again, I qualified this as "public facing web servers", not a webserver
used for personal use or embedded applications. For those applications
there are other, potentially more suitable webserver implementations. When
you have a need Apache's functionality, you run Apache ;P
Apache may have a lot of optional features, but as widely as it is used
and as much auditing has been done on its code, I'd trust it more than I
would one of the smaller single threaded webservers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus%27_Law
Oh, this wasn't a 486. I don't recall what it was. Probably somewhere
in the PII or PIII range; I think I can find the machine and check if
anyone cares.
Any PII and PIII will support at a minimum 512MB of ram (even the consumer
chipsets), but as long as you have swap, 32MB or 64MB would probably work.
It's when you are running the entire OS from media such as CompactFlash or
SD card where you don't have swap that having less memory can become a
challenge with modern software (no X, gui, etc). As cheap as second hand
SDRAM modules are though, adding more memory is the easiest solution.
[A] 486 based
system will simply not have enough physical memory
available [...] while serving up pages via Apache.
Perhaps, if you insist on
running apache. [...] I found 32M plenty usable for NetBSD until I pushed
one machine to
4.0.1 [...]. At 64M there was no problem.
Which i486 boards are you aware of that support 64MB of cachable ram?