2170Re: Apache::ASP with Worker MPM
- Dec 5, 2006Tom Haapanen wrote:
> On 2006-12-05 06:47, Fagyal Csongor wrote:Usually a webpage (at least in our case) consists of the main .asp
>> 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.
(.pet, etc.) file plus the additional stuff, like .js, .css and image
files. The ration is usually around 1:10 (of course that can vary a
lot). It is a huge benefit that these hits do not hit the heavyweight
mod_perl server. Also, the front proxy server can have keepalive
switched on, runs threaded, very lightweight, only using small memory
footprint as compared to the huge mod_perl server.
Also keep in mind that you will end up having a lot of mod_perl-ed
Apache instances running unnecessarily because of (realtively) slow
clients, which keep your Apache waiting. Again, this is a typicla
reverse proxy configuration.
Before we started to use this config, we always had memory problems,
having 200+ Apache instances running, which is an overkill. Now we can
serve dynamic hits with only 30 Apache1.3 instances, while having
somewhere around 400 Apache2.0 available connections.
I also have another website running on a dual 2.4GHz Xeon, in a similar
config, with 4G RAM - that handles 2M pageviews per day (that is over
20M HTTP requests).
This results in 2000+ active connections at peek to the front server,
while we only have somewhere around 120 instances of the backen server
> Our CPU load isn't too bad (dual Opteron 242 currently) since theWell, see above :)
> 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.
You can easily decrease the number of instances needed if you make your
incoming connections independent of the speed of the remote client.
Just take a look at your /server-status/. Especially if you have big
files to serve, you will see connections lingering there. That is what
eats up your resources.
> But maybe the images on a separate server process are the answer ...Even though I do not know your application, I am pretty sure this would be a possible alternative for you.
> 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!
There are many white pages and how-to-s on this subject around. I can also give you an example httpd.conf snippet if you are interested.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: asp-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: asp-help@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>