httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeffrey A. Stuart" <jstuart-apa...@neo.rr.com>
Subject RE: Apache 2.0 final ?
Date Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:00:48 GMT
Interesting!  This is the FIRST time that I've heard that about apache 2.0.
This is a VERY good sign!  :)

--
Jeff Stuart
jstuart@neo.rr.com

-----Original Message-----
From: gregames@Mail.MeepZor.Com [mailto:gregames@Mail.MeepZor.Com]On Behalf Of
Greg Ames
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:25 PM
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache 2.0 final ?

"Jeffrey A. Stuart" wrote:
>
> Ok. Let me ask a stupid question.  Would you recommend 2.0.16 for a
production
> web server?

It's not stupid.  Yes I would recommend 2_0_16 for a production web
server.  Here's how I'd do it:

* push up MaxRequestsPerChild as high as you can on 1.3, keeping an eye
on memory.

* bring up 2.0 with the prefork mpm, first in a test environment, then
in production during a time when the load is relatively light, then all
the time.

* once you're happy with that, try the threaded mpm (assuming you're not
on FreeBSD) with only a handful of threads per process.    This is where
it's important to have MaxRequestsPerChild high.  Once again, try it in
test first, then in production when the load is light.

* once this looks good, start pushing up the number of threads per
process.

If you have a way to beat up a new web server by running a test workload
that's the same as your production workload, that's a big help.  I've
shaken out a number of bugs on apache.org that way, running the new
server on port 8092.  Don't forget to use different log files for your
test environment.

> My other problem (which is DEFINITELY not apache's fault! :)) is
> I have to wait for mod_perl 2.0 and PHP 4 to "officially" work with apache
> 2.0.

Sorry, I can't help here.  But other folks on this list know what's up
with mod_perl and PHP.

Greg


Mime
View raw message