Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-12 Thread Dominic Fandrey
John Almberg wrote: I'm starting to wonder about the Swap info from top... it never changes. It has said the same thing all day, since I've been watching it. Does that make sense? Swap: 2008M Total, 150M Used, 1858M Free, 7% Inuse That looks about normal if your RAM suffices. In that case

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread Gareth Brown
Here's a few you can disable: mod_status, mod_info (both give extra unnecessary info about server) and mod_include (allows include statements in html files). These aren't recommended anyway unless you really need them as they create some level of security concern. mod_userdir

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread Ivan Voras
John Almberg wrote: My Apache 2.2 instances are running about 18 Meg each. I've been thinking about doing something to trim these down, and I think tomorrow is the day to take action. They are getting out of hand. I've done a bit of research on this. I think the way to get started is to

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread John Almberg
Ivan Voras wrote: There is another thing you can try. Judging from the process size you've given it looks like you are not using PHP or a similar Apache module. Also, you didn't specify anything so I assume you are using the default configuration, which operates in prefork mode - MPM_PREFORK,

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread Ivan Voras
John Almberg wrote: I am using PHP, in fact. I've listed all the loaded modules below, and marked the ones I added with an '*'. I need the proxy modules because I use Apache as a front end for Mongrel. This WITH_MPM=worker sounds interesting. I'll have to read up on it. I guess there is

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread John Almberg
PHP is incredibly buggy and will in all probability break Apache if you try running it in threaded mode. That doesn't sound so good. As a sanity check... I've been studying these processes all morning. When I use 'top', the column RES shows the amount of RAM used for the process, correct?

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread Linda Messerschmidt
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM, John Almberg jalmb...@identry.com wrote: As a sanity check... I've been studying these processes all morning. When I use 'top', the column RES shows the amount of RAM used for the process, correct? This is the value I'd like to get down. How many Apache

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread Adam Vande More
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Linda Messerschmidt linda.messerschm...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM, John Almberg jalmb...@identry.com wrote: As a sanity check... I've been studying these processes all morning. When I use 'top', the column RES shows the amount of RAM

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread Michael Powell
Ivan Voras wrote: John Almberg wrote: I am using PHP, in fact. I've listed all the loaded modules below, and marked the ones I added with an '*'. I need the proxy modules because I use Apache as a front end for Mongrel. This WITH_MPM=worker sounds interesting. I'll have to read up on it.

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread John Almberg
Linda Messerschmidt wrote: On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM, John Almbergjalmb...@identry.com wrote: As a sanity check... I've been studying these processes all morning. When I use 'top', the column RES shows the amount of RAM used for the process, correct? This is the value I'd like to get

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread Chuck Swiger
Hi-- On Sep 11, 2009, at 12:42 PM, John Almberg wrote: My basic problem is at peak usage times (usually in the afternoon), the server starts using swap space, and then response times really bog down. Limit the MaxChildren to the number of Apache httpd's which your machine can actually

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread Adam Vande More
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 2:42 PM, John Almberg jalmb...@identry.com wrote: Linda Messerschmidt wrote: On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM, John Almbergjalmb...@identry.com wrote: As a sanity check... I've been studying these processes all morning. When I use 'top', the column RES shows the

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread John Almberg
You've misunderstood what you've done. You have not saved a couple of MB, you've saved one. Of the 18 MB, nearly all of it is shared memory which is only loaded once. Ah... Okay. That actually makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. 1GB web server is more than enough for basic www

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread Diego Montalvo
Have given Nginx web server a try? It is small and may work better with limited RAM. http://www.nginx.net/ http://urloid.com/nginx1 Diego 2009/9/11 John Almberg jalmb...@identry.com: You've misunderstood what you've done.  You have not saved a couple of MB, you've saved one.  Of the 18 MB,

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread Adam Vande More
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:20 PM, John Almberg jalmb...@identry.com wrote: You've misunderstood what you've done. You have not saved a couple of MB, you've saved one. Of the 18 MB, nearly all of it is shared memory which is only loaded once. Ah... Okay. That actually makes sense. Thanks

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread Linda Messerschmidt
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:20 PM, John Almberg jalmb...@identry.com wrote: I would have thought, but some times it really gets slow and I'm trying to figure out why. When bogged down, the load averages are low. The main thing that looks out of whack is swap space, which seems to never go below

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread John Almberg
In this case you don't want to look at processes with big RES, you want to find processes with a big difference between RES and SIZE and/or the ones with flat-out largest SIZE. Try sorting top by SIZE and see what bubbles up. (Ignore rpc.statd if it's running.) Huh... okay. That's

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread Robert Huff
John Almberg writes: I'm starting to wonder about the Swap info from top... it never changes. It has said the same thing all day, since I've been watching it. Does that make sense? The current machine has 8G, so ... porbably not a good test case. :-) It's predecessor

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-11 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Sep 11), John Almberg said: In this case you don't want to look at processes with big RES, you want to find processes with a big difference between RES and SIZE and/or the ones with flat-out largest SIZE. Try sorting top by SIZE and see what bubbles up. (Ignore

reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-10 Thread John Almberg
My Apache 2.2 instances are running about 18 Meg each. I've been thinking about doing something to trim these down, and I think tomorrow is the day to take action. They are getting out of hand. I've done a bit of research on this. I think the way to get started is to eliminate unused modules.

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-10 Thread Chuck Swiger
On Sep 10, 2009, at 7:58 PM, John Almberg wrote: My Apache 2.2 instances are running about 18 Meg each. I've been thinking about doing something to trim these down, and I think tomorrow is the day to take action. They are getting out of hand. [ ... ] But what about the set that is left after

Re: reducing size of apache instances

2009-09-10 Thread Linda Messerschmidt
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:58 PM, John Almberg jalmb...@identry.com wrote: I assume that some are critical to the basic operation of Apache. I am hoping I can google a list of these tomorrow. Obviously these I'll have to live with. This is a pretty short list, and Apache won't start without