| 1 |
Am 08.03.2013 10:02, schrieb Michael Hampicke: |
| 2 |
> Am 07.03.2013 22:49, schrieb Michael Mol: |
| 3 |
>> On 03/07/2013 04:44 PM, Grant wrote: |
| 4 |
>>>>> Thanks Michael, I think I will set up nginx to serve my images. That |
| 5 |
>>>>> should take a big load off apache. Is nginx still beneficial when |
| 6 |
>>>>> using the Worker MPM? |
| 7 |
>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> It...depends? |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>> nginx in reverse caching proxy mode will simply serve up objects before |
| 11 |
>>>> the httpd it's protecting has to deal with them. Whether the type of an |
| 12 |
>>>> MPM makes a significant difference on nginx's value depends more on what |
| 13 |
>>>> kind of work you are (or aren't) asking Apache to do. I really couldn't |
| 14 |
>>>> answer that for you without knowing the details behind what you're |
| 15 |
>>>> running on top of Apache. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> OK, I think either nginx or Worker would help prevent MaxClients from |
| 18 |
>>> being reached and using both of them would help even further. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> If you're using mod_php, you cannot use MPM Worker. Just sayin. It's so |
| 21 |
>> unsupported, they block each other in Portage. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> But you can use worker in conjunction with php via fastcgi or php-fpm. |
| 25 |
> In the best event, that should slightly decrease apaches overall memory |
| 26 |
> footprint. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Sorry, I meant the systems overall memory usage |
Archives