httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey Burgoyne <burgo...@keenuh.com>
Subject Re: Puzzling News
Date Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:41:03 GMT


Jeffrey Burgoyne

Chief Technology Architect
KCSI Keenuh Consulting Services Inc
burgoyne@keenuh.com

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Wayne S. Frazee wrote:

> Paul A. Houle writes:
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I have seen much that would purport the worker
> MPM to deliever gains in terms of capacity handling and
> capacity-burst-handling as well as slimming down the resource footprint of
> the Apache 2 server on a running system under normal load conditions.  Each
> of these improvements would be a definite plus to the Apache web server on
> high availibility and high usage systems/clusters.
>

I can also comment on this as I just did a upgrade to an HA system and
chose 2.0. I did find the footprint of the worker small, but not noticably
faster. Given the hardware we through at it, memory was not the issue (nor
CPU) so there was no advantage to the worker over pre fork. I may have
subconciously chose prefork to stick it to the consultant who said we
needed to move to 2.0 because it was multi-threaded ;)  (which as I
pointed out is not entirely true, but he refused to take it out of his
final report).

BTWhardware was 10 blades, each with 2 3gig Xeons and 2.5 gig of RAM. I
could run my web site on one ....

Mime
View raw message