Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:11:58 -0700
From:      Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
To:        Chris <kingsqueak@home.com>
Cc:        Steve Lewis <nepolon@systray.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Scaling Apache?
Message-ID:  <20000828131158.G1209@fw.wintelcom.net>
In-Reply-To: <20000828154319.A5393@daemon.kingsqueak.org>; from kingsqueak@kingsqueak.org on Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 03:43:19PM -0400
References:  <20000828114314.Y1209@fw.wintelcom.net> <Pine.BSF.4.05.10008281156450.22201-100000@greg.ad9.com> <20000828150743.D4912@daemon.kingsqueak.org> <20000828121932.E1209@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000828154319.A5393@daemon.kingsqueak.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Chris <kingsqueak@kingsqueak.org> [000828 12:50] wrote:
> > 
> > Then again one might want to investigate a server solution that
> > could cut hardware and space costs by a factor of 2 at least.
> > 
> > -Alfred
> 
> Such as...?
> 
> Roxen, very very kewl if you want to use RXML and you have no
> application tier to integrate.  Though it is a tremendous pig compared
> to Apache <RAM and CPU>.

Zues Zues Zeus, or thttpd, there's even AOLserver.

> What else?  Nothing I'd trust with a production tier, nothing
> lighter/faster than Apache that is well supported for use with an
> application tier in an Enterprise environment.

Calling apache 'lighter/faster' is like calling... urm are you sure
we're talking about the same apache here?

> Also with 1U servers, ~45 of which will fit in a single vertical rack,
> fully hardware load balanced... how can you beat that bang/buck/space
> even with the cost of a hardware load balancing solution?  

By using a server that doesn't require that much fluff and horsepower.

> To run the other solutions, Roxen, NES/iPlanet you need the 'bigger
> hammer' approach and man E250's are expensive to start stacking up.
> 
> Of course using Apache in this method, you will need an application tier
> that is capable of clustering and state keeping.

I wasn't advocating Roxen on the basis that it was quicker than
apache, just as an alternative to it, I honestly haven't used it
and I'm quite suprised there's things out there that are slower
than apache.

-- 
-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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000828131158.G1209>