elmoredaniel
asked on
Benefits of Compiling Apache for Windows
Is the windows distribution I download from apache.org still compiled for a 386 processor?
Is it worth the trouble of creating a build myself if I'm not going to run anything out of the ordinary with it?
Thanks
Is it worth the trouble of creating a build myself if I'm not going to run anything out of the ordinary with it?
Thanks
kenfcamp
You should be fine leaving it alone
ASKER
I think I'll wait for a better answer.
In this instance the dependency concerns are more for your Operating system, than hardware. I am assuming however that you have downloaded the win32 version and have reviewed http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/apache/httpd/binaries/win32/README.html
The x86 isn't referering to (286, 386, 486) but rather to the underlying architecture and instruction set that handles 32-bit operations.
Again ......... You should be fine
The x86 isn't referering to (286, 386, 486) but rather to the underlying architecture and instruction set that handles 32-bit operations.
Again ......... You should be fine
ASKER
"Optimizing the server for your platform: By compiling Apache on the platform where it’s to be installed, you can take advantage of the capabilities offered by the operating system or hardware that a prebuilt binary can’t take advantage of. For example, although any x86 processor will run a supplied Apache binary, you can build an optimized binary that takes full advantage of the newer processor features by using a compiler that’s aware of them. There’s no point in retaining a binary that’s built to work on a 386 processor when you can rebuild it to take advantage of a Pentium 4."
http://www.devshed.com/c/a/Apache/Building-Apache-the-Way-You-Want-It/
Sounds like it's referring to the CPU there.
http://www.devshed.com/c/a/Apache/Building-Apache-the-Way-You-Want-It/
Sounds like it's referring to the CPU there.
[Sounds like it's referring to the CPU there.]
Yes it does, for the nix crowd more than likely. But as stated above, x86 isn't referering to (286, 386, 486). Why would the author say this?
Perhaps to sell a book or two, who knows.
Since the minimum supported (admitedly less than robustly) windows version is 98
it's safe to assume the binary is not compiled for a 386 CPU .
I doubt it would run that well even "IF" 98 would install on it and as such I doubt Apache would even waste their time with it.
[see link in last post]
To compile or not compile, this is the question.
IMO, install the binary, see if it has what you need. If so you saved yourself allot of needless running arouind for compilers.
If not, you would have learned something in the mean time. (how to configure etc)
simply find out what you need to do to add what you need for your OS (some times this can be done without compiling). Uninstall and you're ready to start anew
Yes it does, for the nix crowd more than likely. But as stated above, x86 isn't referering to (286, 386, 486). Why would the author say this?
Perhaps to sell a book or two, who knows.
Since the minimum supported (admitedly less than robustly) windows version is 98
it's safe to assume the binary is not compiled for a 386 CPU .
I doubt it would run that well even "IF" 98 would install on it and as such I doubt Apache would even waste their time with it.
[see link in last post]
To compile or not compile, this is the question.
IMO, install the binary, see if it has what you need. If so you saved yourself allot of needless running arouind for compilers.
If not, you would have learned something in the mean time. (how to configure etc)
simply find out what you need to do to add what you need for your OS (some times this can be done without compiling). Uninstall and you're ready to start anew
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Oh, and beside recompilation You may want take a look to one of config optimization guides http://www.howtoforge.com/configuring_apache_for_maximum_performance