| 1 |
On 06/03/2013 22:59, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/06/2013 03:54 PM, Grant wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I lowered my MaxClients setting in apache a long time ago after |
| 4 |
>> running out of memory a couple times. I recently optimized my |
| 5 |
>> website's code and sped the site way up, and now I find myself |
| 6 |
>> periodically up against MaxClients. Is a RAM upgrade the only |
| 7 |
>> practical way to solve this sort of problem? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Use a reverse proxy in caching mode. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> A request served up by the proxy server is a request not served up by |
| 12 |
> Apache. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Squid, nginx and varnish are all decent for the purpose, though squid |
| 15 |
> and nginx are probably the more polished than varnish. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Grant, |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If you optimized the site well, I would imagine your RAM needs per page |
| 21 |
request would go down and you could possibly increase MaxClients again. |
| 22 |
Have you given it a try since the optimization? Increase it slowly bit |
| 23 |
by bit comparing the current performance with what it used to be, and |
| 24 |
make your judgement call. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Is there some reason why you can't just add more memory to the server? |
| 27 |
It's a fast and very cheap and very effective performance booster with |
| 28 |
very little downtime. But if your slots are full and you need new |
| 29 |
hardware, that's a different story. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Michael's proxy suggestion is excellent too - I use nginx for this a |
| 32 |
lot. It's amazingly easy to set up, a complete breath of fresh air after |
| 33 |
the gigantic do-all beast that is apache. Performance depends a lot on |
| 34 |
what your sites actually do, if every page is dynamic with changing |
| 35 |
content then a reverse proxy doesn't help much. Only you know what your |
| 36 |
page content is like. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 41 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives