| 1 |
On 7/21/2011 11:55 AM, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:56 AM, kashani<kashani-list@××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 7/20/2011 6:29 PM, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>>> Also, run a caching proxy if at all possible. That made the single |
| 6 |
>>> biggest difference for my server. |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> Other useful things: |
| 9 |
>>> * Set the MaxRequestsPerChild to something like 450. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> That's pretty low. You'd barely get your application parsed, cached, |
| 12 |
>> and load some data before you'd have to recycle the child process. Most |
| 13 |
>> people set it around 10000. Large enough to be useful, but still deal with |
| 14 |
>> any minor memory leaks. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Depends on your application. I had to set it low because the |
| 17 |
> application wouldn't fit in a 540MB VPS, otherwise. I've since bumped |
| 18 |
> up to a 2GB VPS, so I can probably afford Really, a caching proxy is |
| 19 |
> the first, best thing, if it's not already in use. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Let the thread carry on... |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Hey if it worked, but I think the thrash would be expensive in a normal |
| 26 |
system where you've got a sensible amount of RAM. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I do like the reverse proxy idea. Turn Apache into an application |
| 29 |
server on localhost and let the reverse proxy deal with the Internet. If |
| 30 |
you picked the right proxy multiple requests could be collapsed, static |
| 31 |
files could be served directly, etc. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
kashani |
Archives