On 6 September 2010 23:33, virgil.balibanu <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for your reply, > KeepAlive is irelevant, but inactivity-timeout=300 is the still > working and it is overriding KeepAliveTimeout, right?
Keep alive and inactivity-timeout are two totally unrelated things. Keep alive relates to whether a HTTP client connection to Apache is kept open after the end of a request in case the browser sends another request over same connection. The inactivity-timeout relates to the daemon processes and how long after they become idle will they be restarted to try and reclaim some memory and put process back to base interpreter level. The inactivity-timeout also serves a second purpose. The process will also be recycled in there are active requests, but none of them read request content, or returned response content for that timeout period. Thus it acts as a failsafe to restart processes if request threads hang. In respect of keep alive, I quote the HAProxy documentation: """ Keep-alive was invented to reduce CPU usage on servers when CPUs were 100 times slower. But what is not said is that persistent connections consume a lot of memory while not being usable by anybody except the client who openned them. Today in 2009, CPUs are very cheap and memory is still limited to a few gigabytes by the architecture or the price. If a site needs keep-alive, there is a real problem. Highly loaded sites often disable keep-alive to support the maximum number of simultaneous clients. The real downside of not having keep-alive is a slightly increased latency to fetch objects. Browsers double the number of concurrent connections on non-keepalive sites to compensate for this. """ In short, these days keep alive is often not worth the trouble. In your case especially where you want to reduce memory usage, you would actually be better off disabling keep alive as that way Apache doesn't hold open connections for a client but close them immediately. Thus don't waste memory on holding open connections. > At the moment we have around 600 accounts and with inactivity-timeout > we manage with 3 GB RAM, so I would say this is ok, and we will > probably use more servers later, keeping around 300 users per server, > so I think our configuration should work out pretty well. Is there any > way of not keeping each user o a single process? Don't fully understand what you may mean by this last question. Graham -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "modwsgi" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en.
