----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronald Klop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Frans-Jan v. Steenbeek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 2:03 AM Subject: Re: 6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:42:18 +0200, Frans-Jan v. Steenbeek > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm a sysadmin and a web-programmer at a company in the Netherlands. In > > the following month we will launch a webshop which will have a estimated > > 1000 full hits in the first weeks (estimated through calculation of the > > marketing-departement). I am writing the webshop, and have installed the > > webserver. Because of issues with our housing, we can't put our HP > > webserver to use, since it produces to much noise in our very small > > building. Since we are moving in a few months, we decided to use a HP > > laptop instead (reasonably fast CPU, 512 Megs) since we had a few to > > spare. > > What do you mean by 1000 hits? Is it 1000 customers or 1000 http requests? > 1000 hits a week is 1000 / ( 7 * 24 * 60 ) = 0 hits per minute or 5 in an > hour. > If your laptop crashes every 10 minutes there is a change no customer wil > notice it. > > > The toy is currently set up with FreeBSD 6.0-BETA2, Apache 2.0, MySQL 5.0 > > and PHP-5.0 with all the reasonable modules. Everything is compiled from > > ports. No changes to the kernel yet, no world-rebuilding done. > > > > I trust the laptop enough to get the job done, but I wonder if 6.0-BETA2 > > will be up for the task. I heard rumours that it should be more stable > > and > > faster then 5.4-RELEASE (which I use mostly nowadays), but it IS beta > > after all. On the other hand, I get the impression that 6.0 is the > > release > > of choice for deploying anything on a laptop (considering that darned > > Pentium-M). Another thing, I do not fully trust the combination of Apache > > 2.0, MySQL 5.0 and PHP 5.0, since they are all quite new in the > > frontlines. > > This would be a decent testcase for 6.0, but the thing is... I can't > > afford any crashes (this webshop is considered to settle the future for > > our company) and we are talking about a laptop here. > > Funny to settle the future for a company this way. I hope your customers > aren't reading this. > ;-) > > > I will post all problems not yet reported to the list, but if anyone of > > you would like to share his or her opinion on this matter, please let me > > know. Will 4.11-RELEASE perhaps be a better choice? > > You are asking a silly question. It comes down to "I'm running BETA > software. Can I expect this to be STABLE?". > If it is stable, it wil say stable in the version number. > > Except for Apache all your software is beta, but from sourcecode which is > quite mature for some time. > You can only answer this question by inviting 1000 (virtual) friends and > ask them to buy something in your webshop. > > Ronald. > > -- > Ronald Klop > Amsterdam, The Netherlands > _______________________________________________ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > STABLE-4 is VERY good and my advice for you - use it instead of any beta's... MySQL v5 is good but greedy one. You'll need ALOT of memory. And Apache2 - it's just a question of taste. Frequently speaking - I'm still using Apache1 and it works pretty stable and fine... _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"