Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tani Hosokawa <unknown@riverstyx.net>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: about threads (yes it's an obsession :-)
In-Reply-To: <37792CE1.178E2F0D@eurosport.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906291331590.19252-100000@avarice.riverstyx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Laurent Sinitambirivoutin wrote:

> well, as a matter of fact, i use a regular linux on top of a bipentium
> II xeon 400, with 21GB raid5 and 1GB ram. Until the Roland Garros tennis
> tournament, we never had any problem. At that occasion we served pages
> which were refreshed every minute. We had more than 130 000 users a day
> on Rolland Garros only. Besides the fact that our bandwith wasn't big
> enough anymore (though it was a 4Mb one), I suddenly saw apache
> generating about 400 processes... and shortly after that my server
> wasn't responding anymore (i had to wait for a lower load and
> reconfigure apache to 250 process max but of course the site got very
> slow to respond). Of course, I could raise my process limit, but beside
> the fact that I can't just reboot the server every now and then, i feel
> this would be a very short term solution. Well, i think that load
> balancing can help me on this. But now, if apache-pthreads can handle
> the same job than 1.3.3 with only 81 process, i have to seriously
> consider the option

I wouldn't consider that to be a short-term solution.  I run servers that
do over 1500 processes for hours at a time, on *MUCH* smaller hardware.
The standard kernel isn't configured for production server usage... just
increase NR_TASKS, it'll be fine.

---
tani hosokawa
river styx internet