Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2169Re: Apache::ASP with Worker MPM

Expand Messages
  • Tom Haapanen
    Dec 5, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On 2006-12-05 06:47, Fagyal Csongor wrote:
      > What I have been running lately is an Apache2.2 with the worker MPM as
      > a proxy, and a good-old Apache1.3 with mod_perl+Apache::ASP as the
      > "real" server. The mod_perl server serves the dynamic ASP pages, while
      > the front servert the static content. This is a very typical
      > configuration IMHO.
      > I could once (something like two years ago?) make Apache::ASP run with
      > Apache 2.0, but that was a long time ago... since then, I stick to the
      > above config - which I recommend to you if you do not want to waste
      > too much time on figuring out all the stuff about Apache2.x and
      > mod_perl (even though it shouldn't be too hard).
      > For the record: we do somewhere around 6M-8M pageviews per month (see
      > http://www.kepeslap.com at http://www.apache-asp.org/sites.html),
      > which peeks to approx. 500-700k pageviews per day in busy periods.
      > This is a 1.8Ghz Core2 with 3G RAM, in a shared environment (with two
      > other rather busy sites running on the same server). CPU utilization
      > reaches 50% of all available CPU time, tops (I guess half of that is
      > coming from the ASP site).

      Thanks ... it sounds like your config works well for you. However,
      since 95% of our page views are dynamic, I'm not sure it would gain
      much. The only thing I can think of there is serving all the images off
      Apache 1.3.

      Our CPU load isn't too bad (dual Opteron 242 currently) since the
      database is on a separate server, but there are still times that the
      number of httpd processes are maxed out and the browser has to wait for
      a connection. So the new hardware will be dual Opteron 270s (dual core)
      so I have no worries about CPU load -- I'd just rather run 4-6GB rather
      than 8-10GB of RAM.

      But maybe the images on a separate server process are the answer ...
      there are close to 10x as many requests for images as for pages. Mostly
      small GIFs but also a lot of larger JPEGs. Need to give this idea some
      thought as an alternative. Thanks!


      To unsubscribe, e-mail: asp-unsubscribe@...
      For additional commands, e-mail: asp-help@...
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic