Apache :: Running multiple versions. (2.0.4 & 2.2.6)

CameronY · Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 13 Location: Brisbane, Australia

Hi all,

Has been a while since I've been, so I'm happy to see that the Apache Lounge is still up and running.

Have a question regarding the possibility of running multiple versions of Apache on the same server.
On one of our servers (W8), we've been running Apache 2.0.4 and has been as solid as a rock - not having to touch it since it's installation. And the application runs out of C:\Program Files\Apache Group\Apache2. The only noticible difference is that the NT Service name is called "NtHols_ABCD".

With the above in mind, would it be possible to install Apache 2.2.6 to run out of C:\Program Files\Apache Group\Apache2.2.6 and have a NT Service name of "Apache2.2.6" ??

I'd like to be able to avoid even suggesting upgrading 2.0.4 to the customer as that instance has a HUGE number of virtual hosts and I'd prefer not to touch what isn't broken.

Cheers,
Cameron

glsmith

Yes, but they cannot both be on port 80.

2.0.4? surprised they're not "owned"

I had no problem going from 2.0.x to 2.2.x. Not like going from 1.3 to 2.x.
There is no difference in configuring the two really, 2.2.6 is backward compatible. I can switch from 2.0.61 to 2.2.6 on the fly using all the same conf files that my vhosts are in. Each one has it's own seperate httpd.conf file but those "include" the same vhost files (I have a few).

glsmith

"2.0.4? surprised they're not "owned""

bad taste, my apologies

There are a few remote code execution vulnerabilities in prior versions.

CameronY · Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 13 Location: Brisbane, Australia

Hi glsmith - no need to apologise; any voiced opinion is appreciated.

True, there are a number of security enhancements/bug fixes since 2.0.4.
I had upgraded another server to 2.2.4 some time ago and was relatively easy, took about a week (on and off) to plan, prepare, test and do the cut-over. But that server had all of four vhosts.

The current server with 2.0.4 has over sixty - and the customer isn't interested in getting the upgrade done (the adage of "why fix when it's not broke"). Which is kinda good for me - the resulting vhosts.conf would be a challenge to do. My thoughts were that if it were to be done that I'd move the virtual hosts into the vhosts.conf.

You mention that they cannot be both on port-80.
What port is "generally" used as an alternate port in light if the context of this thread ?

Cheers,
Cameron

glsmith

I've seen a number of them used, 81, 85, 88, 8000, 8080
Only thing I will say about 8000 is that is the default port for ShoutCast Radio so I've always suggested not to use it. My company blocked 8000 for that reason (never got a reason why).

I understand "not broke why fix", but I think a case could be made that when it does need to be fixed, the "broken" could be in the form of embarrassing and/or malicious defaced websites. Apache by default runs as System, this leaves a lot of room for the wicked to work with.

CameronY · Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 13 Location: Brisbane, Australia

Yep, I hear you.
Shame the customer hasn't (or rather will, but with little regard).

Thanks for the feedback. Smile

Cheers,
Cameron

glsmith

You're welcome.

I got to thinking about this on the commute home from work. 2.0.61 is a viable option. That should be install and go, no modification necessary and should add comfort to all.