From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Aug 28 14: 4:19 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 68BC937B423 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:04:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e7SL2lJ19812; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:02:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:02:47 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Jim Jagielski Cc: Steve Lewis , "James E. Pace" , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Scaling Apache? Message-ID: <20000828140247.A18862@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000828121802.D1209@fw.wintelcom.net> <200008282057.QAA08753@devsys.jaguNET.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <200008282057.QAA08753@devsys.jaguNET.com>; from jim@jaguNET.com on Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 04:57:32PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Jim Jagielski [000828 13:57] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > * Jim Jagielski [000828 12:04] wrote: > > > Steve Lewis wrote: > > > > > > > To some, anything that says "threaded" is automatically better. > > > Whether it is or it isn't. :) > > > > Let me put it another way: > > > > Apache sucks for performance, my grandmother (dead) can handle > > load better than apache. > > Oh really... :/ And that's on a bad day. > > And assuming that I'm naive enough to be in the "threaded is better" > > camp is stupid, you should have researched my previous postinging > > before making such an incorrect assumption. > > Who assumed here? Looks like you did. I assumed nothing. I simply > stated a fact that to some people threaded==better. Did I say > you? Nope. So _who_ exactly assumed here? The implication was clear to me. > > Sure, if you cluster apache it helps hide the fact that it sucks > > for load because then you can have a thousand machines sucking in > > tandem. > > Sorry. The front-end machine handles the full onslaught of requests > and offloads the actual _handling_ of those requests to other machines. > This was directly to the point that said Apache can't handle thousands > of simultaneous requests, which is itself an incredible murky and > fuzzy term. No it's not fuzzy, it can't or at least not nearly as well as the many alternatives out there. > > Yes that works for relatively heavy traffic, but not for extremely > > high amounts of traffic. > > > > So Apache can handle "relatively heavy traffic" but not "extremely > high amounts of traffic"? > > Apache was never designed to be "the fastest" web server around. > We designed it with different groundrules. With 2.0, one major > design consideration _was_ performance, and 2.0 does in fact kick > some ass and allows preforking, process/thread and "pure thread" > operation, which is good to have. I'll believe it when I see it. -- -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