From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 15 15:47:17 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75CA16A46C for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:47:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bbump@rsts.org) Received: from mail.rsts.org (host-82-161-107-208.midco.net [208.107.161.82]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D15313C455 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:47:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bbump@rsts.org) Received: from mail.rsts.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.rsts.org (8.13.6/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1FFlF2G079232; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:47:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from bbump@rsts.org) Received: from localhost (bbump@localhost) by mail.rsts.org (8.13.6/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id m1FFlFqI079229; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:47:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from bbump@rsts.org) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.rsts.org: bbump owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:47:15 -0700 (MST) From: Brett Bump To: Uwe Doering In-Reply-To: <47B4E0A6.3010205@geminix.org> Message-ID: <20080215083930.P79197@mail.rsts.org> References: <20080214114759.R75215@mail.rsts.org> <47B49A16.1080103@FreeBSD.org> <20080214131026.Y75492@mail.rsts.org> <47B4C19F.6000900@palisadesys.com> <20080214154528.N75492@mail.rsts.org> <47B4E0A6.3010205@geminix.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Guy Helmer Subject: Re: System perforamance 4.x vs. 5.x and 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:47:17 -0000 On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Uwe Doering wrote: > Have you tried sorting this list alphabetically? Believe it or not, > when I tried to use Apache 1.3.x with PHP 5.2.x with extensions in > arbitrary order I got inexplicable crashes, too. > > Now, of course it was just a coincidence that it worked for me after > sorting the extension list. What this in fact points to is that the > order of extensions can be important in that list, for whatever reason. > For me it worked after sorting the list, but YMMV. Might be worth a > try, though. > > Regards, > > Uwe > -- > Uwe Doering | EscapeBox - Managed On-Demand UNIX Servers > gemini@geminix.org | http://www.escapebox.net > Ran it stock, sorted, read a thread a while back about someone who thought you should have mysql first, then imap, then blah blah blah, nothing made any difference. The machine tends to always show about 98% memory used, although at any point in time 1/2 of that could be inact. The malloc errors in the apache logs made me consider the idea of adding more memory to the box (but there are always pundits that say, "wow, more than 2g?"). Brett