From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Aug 28 11:59:49 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F298037B422 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:59:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e7SIwMe15320; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:58:22 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Steve Lewis Cc: "James E. Pace" , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Scaling Apache? Message-ID: <20000828115822.A1209@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000828114314.Y1209@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: ; from nepolon@systray.com on Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 12:03:41PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Steve Lewis [000828 11:53] wrote: > On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > What do you recommend for a web server if Apache is "entirely useless" may > > > I ask? > > > > Zues, thttpd, roxen, there's a lot out there that are a lot faster. > > > > Supposedly Zues is king. > > Do you happen to know what these do better than apache? "everything", apache needs a process to handle each request this doesn't work when you have thousands of connections per-second it can't even deal with 200-300 per-second. One trick is to hack apache use the "accept filters" that I brought into FreeBSD (from Yahoo), you can search the mailing lists for patches to have apache use them. > When considering the potencial load of a web server, I look at the > hardware as the bottleneck. I have never seen apache consume that much > process time, though my experience is limited. Usually we hit bandwidth > limits before we hit the box's peak, IME. The hardware is only the bottleneck because it has crummy software running on it. > They is also the consideration of supported packages... is James' site > made of static pages or dynamic ones? How are they generated? Would it > require re-engineering of the site to switch to another web daemon. > > I imagine that these faster servers would use the hardware in a way that > keeps request overhead lower (logging and caching tricks) but the > trade-offs in server-side scripting support could kill that. That is true, one should be investigating fast-cgi or some equivelant to deal with that. > Does anyone know of a good FAQ or other resource on load balancing with > apache? Many companies sell load balancers that you can stick in front of apache, but if one has the chance to avoid apache for a busy site right away, they should. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message