httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tony Anecito <>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] APR or Apache, virtual hosts and multi-core tuning...
Date Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:32:15 GMT
Hi Mark,

Many thanks I will think about what you said. I had read somewhere local domains tied to virtual
hosts was a good thing and I saw that yahoo seemed to be doing that but then who knows what
the big internet sites are really doing behind the scenes.

Best Regards,
Tony Anecito

----- Original Message ----
From: Mark Watts <>
Sent: Tue, June 29, 2010 3:34:01 AM
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] APR or Apache, virtual hosts and multi-core tuning...

On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 07:54 -0700, Tony Anecito wrote:
> Hi All,
> I noticed using Firefox with a plugin yslow that it recommends using only 4 virtual hosts
instead of the 16 I have for serving images. I am using a 6 core system and want to make sure
I take advantage of it using Apache APR so I setup more than 4 virtual hosts.
> I am using multiple virtual hosts for serving images since I heard that can improve user
response time where they have browsers with 4 or more concurrent connections supported. I
have a screenshots page where I have 24 thumbnails being loaded into the browser and I am
trying to tune APR for the best user response time.
> So any best practice for this you all would recommend?

I suspect you've heard bunkum.

In theory, I can see where using multiple physical servers to serve
content could speed things up, but that's partly based on what you are
serving and to how many clients.

For the general case, one Virtual Host is all that is required. It just
needs to be properly configured to handle the maximum number of client
connections you wish to support at any one time.

Setting MaxClients (for PreFork)to something high (within the reasonable
limits imposed by your system Memory) should deal with that.
You might also want to tweak Max/MinSpareServers should your system
suffer from particularly bursty usage spikes.
The Worker MPM is a very good choice for static content in my

Personally I believe that, for modern servers handling static content,
one is far more likely to run out of Internet bandwidth than server

Serving static content is entirely I/O bound, with Internet bandwidth
usually giving out before Disk or Memory. Use of SSD disks or memory
caches would probably remove most server I/O bottle necks, leaving
Internet bandwidth as the main issue.


Mark Watts BSc RHCE MBCS
Senior Systems Engineer, Managed Services Manpower
QinetiQ - Delivering customer-focused solutions
GPG Key:


The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
   "   from the digest:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message