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