From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Aug 28 16:57:58 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from avarice.riverstyx.net (hq-port-89.harbour-dhcp-pool.infinetgroup.com [207.23.37.89]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B0137B423 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:57:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from unknown@localhost) by avarice.riverstyx.net (8.10.2/8.10.1) id e7SNv3004347; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:57:03 -0700 Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:57:03 -0700 From: Tani Hosokawa To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Mike Meyer , questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Scaling Apache? Message-ID: <20000828165703.E1764@riverstyx.net> References: <17477616@toto.iv> <14762.56098.997893.119112@guru.mired.org> <20000828143857.B18862@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20000828143857.B18862@fw.wintelcom.net>; from bright@wintelcom.net on Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 02:38:57PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 02:38:57PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Mike Meyer [000828 14:36] wrote: > > Alfred Perlstein writes: > > > * 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 > > > > Huh? That stopped being true a *long* time ago. Last time I looked at > > the default config, the number of requests a process would handle was > > set very low, but that is trivially fixable. > > I'm aware of the way that it keeps the processes around for to grab the > next request, it's still not good enough. It's the MaxRequestsPerChild > or something 'tunable'. There appears to be a terminology conflict here -- Apache uses one child per connection, which may serve multiple requests. Zeus uses one process to handle all connections and requests, as it just puts all the connections into a select() or poll() (dunno which) and does its own switching between connections instead of letting the OS do it. Zeus slaughters Apache in performance. Apache is more stable if you do strange things to it. It's easier to write modules for Apache, since if your module crashes you lose a child. In Zeus, if you were to introduce code that runs inside the server kernel, you'd crash the entire site if something went wrong. -- tani hosokawa river styx internet To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message