Try raising the PHP_FCI_CHILDREN as Alvaro says, I got an 8Gb quadcore server running for 2 months with 200 php-fastcgi processes and it runs wonderful.
Jorge S. On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[email protected]>wrote: > On 28-jul-09, at 23:49, Stefan de Konink wrote: > > Hello wrote: > >> I've stripped the php-cgi so now it allegedly takes up 2.4m at > >> startup > >> and probably grows. I am loading 1000 php-fastcgi process and at > >> around > >> 150 conncurrent connection the server takes 30-infinity seconds to > >> respond to some requests while allegedly reponding to some requests > >> just > >> fine. Anybody have any idea what's goin on behind the scenes. How are > >> the fastcgi threads allocated. Why isn't the server responding when > >> there are allegedly more fastcgi then concurrents. > > Actually, php-cgi does not use threads. It forks a fixed number of > processes defined by the PHP_FCGI_CHILDREN environment variable. Those > are the processes in charge of executing all the FastCGI requests. In > case all of them were busy, the news request would have to wait until > one of them finish its current task. > > The easiest solution would be to raise the value of PHP_FCGI_CHILDREN > so more php-cgi processes are fork()ed, and therefore a higher > concurrency level is available. > > By the way, there is no reason to turn off the keep-alive support. I'd > rather keep it on (with a sort keep-alive time limit if you wish) so > clients takes advantage of it. The bottleneck is in php-cgi, Cherokee > will have no problem what so ever handling those keep-alive > connections efficiently. > > -- > Octality > http://www.octality.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Cherokee mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee >
_______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
