> How many apache children do you normally have running at any given time?
Apache is set to:
MaxKeepAliveRequests 200
KeepAliveTimeout 15
MinSpareServers 5
MaxSpareServers 10
StartServers 10
MaxClients 512
MaxRequestsPerChild 200
Is that to say that the max number of children is 20 (StartServers +
MaxSpareServers) or 512 (MaxClients)
I am just starting to learn about having a "light" server to perform all
static functions. As you may have seen on the site, there are a lot of
images. The images are stored in a MySQL database, and the mod_perl script
requests them. Is my understanding correnct that I can set up a server to
deal with all of the mod_perl scripting requests, and have a separate server
that deals exclusively with displaying images and other static content? I'm
a little confused, but it sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
Jon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jonathan Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Do virtual hosts need their own servers?
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 12:13:37PM -0600, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
> > Related to this topic, I have a question about multiple instances of
Apache.
> > We run two mod_perl enabled sites on two separate IPs. These sites rely
on
> > mod_perl heavily. Each site has a unique perl script that handles just
about
> > everything. Currently, we only have one instance of Apache running, and
I've
> > noticed that the httpd child processes are quite large (up to 32megs!).
> > We've upgraded the RAM on our server twice and now we're at 512, but it
> > seems to be using all of that without a problem. Are these httpd
processes
> > so large because they include copies of both perl scripts? Would it be
more
> > efficient to set up two instances of Apache, one for each site/IP, and
that
> > way each child httpd would only contain one of the two perl scripts?
> >
>
> Compare the memory requirement two sets of perl scripts against the
> memory requirement of doubling the total number of apache processes.
>
> My personal opinion is that the latter will be a lot more expensive in
> resources. You might do better do work to optimize/minimize the total
> number of mod_perl instances (separate, lightweight server for images and
> static content; turn off keep_alive unless it's definately giving positive
> results; etc).
>
> How many apache children do you normally have running at any given time?
>
>
> Dave
>
> p.s. The processes could also be large because of suboptimal coding, or
(if
> they grow over time) memory leaks
>
> p.p.p.s. love the palm pilot cases ...
>
> --
>
> - Dave Baker : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
http://dsb3.com/ -
> GnuPG: 1024D/D7BCA55D / 09CD D148 57DE 711E 6708 B772 0DD4 51D5 D7BC
A55D
>
>
>
