On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 10:46:34PM +0100, John Robinson wrote: > On 01/05/2008 17:34, David Rees wrote: > > Yes, but my point remains - instead of being primarily memory limited > > like Apache, > > Apache isn't really all that much of a memory hog. Its processes > apparently being 30M in size doesn't mean they're 30M each; most of it's > shared, and individually the amount of memory they use when they're > serving non-dynamic content is minimal.
top says ~500m VIRT and ~60m RES, I take it that each process eats about 60m. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpq1WSO3qlwR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ atrpms-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
