From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Aug 28 13:13:43 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 A448337B440 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:13:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e7SKBwj17933; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:11:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:11:58 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Chris Cc: Steve Lewis , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Scaling Apache? Message-ID: <20000828131158.G1209@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000828114314.Y1209@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000828150743.D4912@daemon.kingsqueak.org> <20000828121932.E1209@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000828154319.A5393@daemon.kingsqueak.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <20000828154319.A5393@daemon.kingsqueak.org>; from kingsqueak@kingsqueak.org on Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 03:43:19PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Chris [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 . 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