August 29th, 2002, 09:27 PM
Apache 2.0.40 on WinXP is running VERY slowly compared to Serv-U FTP.
My apache installation on WinXP (as a service) using the default configuration options (in the installer) is sending files at incredibly low speeds (even on 127.0.0.1). While FTP is giving me 15 MBytes/sec, Apache is sending at 9.2 KBytes/sec! This is only for actual file transfers. If I receive a directory listing or an http error message, then I get a response immediately. Otherwise, I get extremely poor performance (including waiting several seconds for the http response).
The problem might be related to the use of TransmitFile in core.c. I previously used Apache 2.0.40 (or 2.0.39) on Win98 with absolutely no problems. I haven't made any tweaks to the network parameters of WinXP (as far as I know). I am also current with all patches.
I have gotten the following log messages:
[Thu Aug 29 22:11:29 2002] [info] (22564)The specified network name is no longer available. : core_output_filter: writing data to the network
[Thu Aug 29 21:03:09 2002] [info] (22522)The device does not recognize the command. : core_output_filter: writing data to the network
[Thu Aug 29 19:18:52 2002] [info] (32553)An established connection was aborted by the software in your host machine. : core_output_filter: writing data to the network
[Thu Aug 29 14:03:40 2002] [info] (22621)The semaphore timeout period has expired. : core_output_filter: writing data to the network
I posted a bug report at this address regarding this and other problems that have since seemingly gone away.
Any help would be very much appreciated!
David M. Andersen
Last edited by dma; August 30th, 2002 at 04:26 PM.
September 1st, 2002, 02:25 AM
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but your fix is
- Use apache 1.3
2.0.xx is just too unstable and really weird for any mainstream usage yet, but version 1.3 is pretty stable (and probably fewer unseen exploits. So rather than update apache 2.0.xx daily, go with 1.3.
thats just my opinion anyways
September 1st, 2002, 02:48 AM
That 15mbytes/s you get, is it burstable or consistent? http would definitely be not as efficient as ftp, but you should get better then 9kbytes on localhost..
And you know I mean that.