Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hyperreal.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA16132; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 06:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sierra.zyzzyva.com (ppp0-sierra.zyzzyva.com [208.214.59.46]) by hyperreal.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA16113 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 06:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sierra (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sierra.zyzzyva.com (8.8.5/8.8.2) with ESMTP id IAA10435 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 08:41:32 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199707081341.IAA10435@sierra.zyzzyva.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0delta 6/3/97 To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: JPL's rocketing webservers In-reply-to: brian's message of Tue, 08 Jul 1997 01:23:37 -0700. <3.0.3.32.19970708012337.007f16f0@localhost> X-uri: http://www.zyzzyva.com/ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 08:41:31 -0500 From: Randy Terbush Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org > At 08:49 PM 7/7/97 -0700, sameer wrote: > >Which is of course a big MT plus. with MT won't need so much RAM. > > Perhaps not a huge amount, as Dean has been arguing. What OS is JPL's > servers running? I'd guess Irix since that's what SGI's press release told > me :) Slowlaris 2.5 These servers are handling www.jpl.nasa.gov. The actual Pathfinder server is a separate unit provided by SGI and last I looked running Netscape. Currently unable to answer a HEAD request. > They did turn off hostnamelookups, right? Yep > And parsing for .htaccess files? As much as possible. > And unloaded any modules they didn't need? As much as possible. These servers are used for individual projects as well. > When we tuned the server on the largest site we ever hosted, stripping out > the non-essential modules (i.e. mod_cgi, mod_dir!) we were able to handle > 300-400 simultaneous children on a 128MB DEC Alpha 233mhz running OSF/1, > and hitting bursts of 80-100 hits/sec with a sustained average around 60-65 > hits/sec. We still didn't sufficiently satisfy the demand in my opinion > (the accept() queue took 10-15 seconds to get through) but the point is > that there might be a lot more tuning possible. They were averaging ~550 simul children. They serve quite a few big graphic files, so 34/sec might be doing pretty well. Dunno. It would be fun to tweak on this some more, but they might get tired of me. :-) > Brian > > > > --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- > "Why not?" - TL brian@organic.com - hyperreal.org - apache.org