- "Nick Loman" wrote:
> Precisely, we only have perhaps 50 PHP children serving requests, so
> if these are kept open to serve idle keep-alive connections, that
> severely limits the numbers of dynamic page requests we can serve.
It sound like you and Michael need a limit on the number of co
In message <49face30.7010...@loman.net>, Nick Loman writes:
>I'm sure I could find a way of getting Apache to put in a 10msec
>Keep-Alive timeout if that was necessary.
>
>Are you proposing that Varnish would then hold and re-use that backend
>connection for a waiting request from a different us
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <49fab28f.2040...@loman.net>, Nick Loman writes:
>> Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>> Which way round do you mean?
>>
>> Apache specifies Keep-Alive in seconds, and my sites will certainly die
>> if I set it to even 1 second.
>
> Tell the apache developers to ge
In message <49fab28f.2040...@loman.net>, Nick Loman writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>Which way round do you mean?
>
>Apache specifies Keep-Alive in seconds, and my sites will certainly die
>if I set it to even 1 second.
Tell the apache developers to get their act together then.
>But I would l
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <49f9bf57.4020...@loman.net>, Nick Loman writes:
>
>> Precisely, we only have perhaps 50 PHP children serving requests, so if
>> these are kept open to serve idle keep-alive connections, that severely
>> limits the numbers of dynamic page requests we can ser
In message <49f9bf57.4020...@loman.net>, Nick Loman writes:
>Precisely, we only have perhaps 50 PHP children serving requests, so if
>these are kept open to serve idle keep-alive connections, that severely
>limits the numbers of dynamic page requests we can serve.
The difference between letting
Michael S. Fischer wrote:
>> I've done that for a specific reason relating to backend PHP processes.
>
> I don't dispute your reasoning; my employer does this as well.
> KeepAlive with Apache/PHP can be a recipe for resource starvation on
> your origin servers.
Hi Michael,
Precisely, we only
On Apr 29, 2009, at 9:30 AM, Nick Loman wrote:
> Michael S. Fischer wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>> In message <49f87de4.3040...@loman.net>, Nick Loman writes:
>>>
Has Varnish got a solution to this problem which does not involve
time-wait recycling? O
Michael S. Fischer wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>> In message <49f87de4.3040...@loman.net>, Nick Loman writes:
>>
>>> Has Varnish got a solution to this problem which does not involve
>>> time-wait recycling? One thing I've thought of is perhaps SO_REUSEADDR
>>>
On Apr 29, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <49f87de4.3040...@loman.net>, Nick Loman writes:
>
>> Has Varnish got a solution to this problem which does not involve
>> time-wait recycling? One thing I've thought of is perhaps
>> SO_REUSEADDR
>> is used or could be used when
In message <49f87de4.3040...@loman.net>, Nick Loman writes:
>Has Varnish got a solution to this problem which does not involve
>time-wait recycling? One thing I've thought of is perhaps SO_REUSEADDR
>is used or could be used when Varnish makes connections to the backend?
Varnish tries as hard a
Hi there,
Has anyone come to a satisfactory solution to the issue of running out
of local port numbers when Varnish makes a connection to the backend server?
Under Linux, my understanding is the number of available port numbers
can be increased to a maximum of 64511 by setting
/proc/sys/net/ip
12 matches
Mail list logo
