Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:40:46 -0700 From: "Erin" <Kahn@deadbbs.com> To: "'Alfred Perlstein'" <bright@wintelcom.net>, "'James E. Pace'" <jepace@pobox.com> Cc: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Scaling Apache? Message-ID: <002a01c0111f$7b3b0de0$e815820a@sdccd.cc.ca.us> In-Reply-To: <20000828113233.X1209@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > > * James E. Pace <jepace@pobox.com> [000828 11:23] wrote: > > > > I've got a 2 way Pentium III / 550MHz system with 1GB of > memory running > > 4.1-STABLE. > > > > For a project I'm working on, I need to have a webserver > handle thousands > > (and 10's of thousands) of simultaneous connections. To do > this, it > > seems the best way is to have lots and LOTS of apache's > httpds running > > at all times. > > [snip] > > apache is entirely useless for high amounts of traffic, you should be > investigating another webserver or looking at a > clustering/load-balancing > solution. This almost scares me. If apache can not handle it, where do you go? IIS? It might be time to start looking into apache 2, but it's still in alpha. I tend to agree with Alfred (no suprise there), you need to look into a server farm with load-balancing. Erin mailto:kahn@deadbbs.com http://www.deadbbs.com http://www.fortenberry.net Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?002a01c0111f$7b3b0de0$e815820a>