Configuring Apache for Maximum Performance

[john555]

I'm running my home internet buissness (website), so I'm running my own Apache. Recently, I've read this article: Configuring Apache for Maximum Performance ( www.eioba.com/a69869/configuring_apache_for_maximum_performance ) and I have a question to you:

What you think about this advices? Are they true? Maybe you have more advices to me?

[edited by: jdMorgan at 2:56 pm (utc) on Dec. 23, 2006]
[edit reason] De-linked [/edit]

[Frank_Rizzo]

I don't think it is a good article. There is a mistake with the allowoveride section:

"If AllowOverride is not set to 'None', then Apache will attempt to open .htaccess file"

That is not correct. Once I read that bit I closed the page and went to find a more accurate article.

[Frank_Rizzo]

Hmm, just reread it. It is correct but the flow is confusing! That's what first made me think there was an error and close the page to find something else.

I'm sure Jakob Neilsen has guidelines on how to frame positive and negative flow controls :-)

[sonjay]

Actually, that sounds pretty accurate to me. The apache.org documentation for .htaccess has this to say about it:

When AllowOverride is set to allow the use of .htaccess files, Apache will look in every directory for .htaccess files.

Perhaps you can clarify how that article's statement is incorrect.

[jdMorgan]

AllowOverride FileInfo is required.
AllowOverride Options is required if FollowSymLinks or SymLinksIfOwnerMatch is not already configured at the server config level, in order to let the user do it in .htaccess. One of these must be enabled to enable mod_rewrite.

I think the author was probably trying to avoid burying his main point in a nest of IF-AND-OR-BUT conditions... :)

Jim

[Frank_Rizzo]

sonjay, as I said... there is a double negative there.

This is all about semantic flow control. Due to the none / not / whatever wording of that article I instantly assumed that it was incorrect and duly moved on. I made a mistake in assuming the article was incorrect but the damage had already been done.

I think there is a lesson here in wording. If it doesn't "read right" the user will move on.

[edited by: Frank_Rizzo at 12:57 am (utc) on Dec. 24, 2006]

[sonjay]

Yes, Frank_Rizzo, I see that you posted again while I was writing my comment.

Agreed, it could have been written better to avoid the double negative. It's a good example of why we should always try to avoid anything that sounds confusing or could be misinterpreted.

The apache.org statement was clearer, in that it avoided the double negative, but the example in the OP was more specific in that it indicated that any setting for AllowOverride other than none would indeed allow the use of .htaccess files.

The apache.org explanation left it to the reader's knowledge of what setting or settings "allows the use of .htaccess files," while the statement in the first example explicitly tells us that any setting other than "none" triggers this condition.