Glad I could help. :-)

I haven't tried the multisite and have used MU for QUITE a while, but did
use it once successfully on an "alternative" web server called Abyss and it
worked fine.  All of mine are individual standalone WP installs for various
clients.

I do plan on trying out the multisite soon though on Cherokee.  I'll let you
know if I encounter anything.

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:16 AM, C. Mundi <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dennis,
>
> Actually, your comments have been very helpful.  If I may ask... are you
> using WP3 multisite, WP-mu, or separate side-by-side installations of WP for
> your mutliple sites?  I ask because in my preliminary reading it seems to me
> that the new WP3 multisite leans strongly toward Apache.  So I'm curious to
> know if the new multisite feature works with Cherokee.
>
> Thanks again for your help and for the Totalcache tip!
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Dennis Clayton <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Wish I could help.  Instead of WP Supercache, I switched to W3 Totalcache
>> when I switched to Cherokee, seems to work much better with different
>> servers other than Apache.  Doubt that's the problems though.  Good luck.
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:27 PM, C. Mundi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Updates:
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure I am dealing with a WP issue, unrelated to Cherokee.  But
>>> since I started this thread, I figure I should finish it.  In case anyone
>>> finds this thread with google, I should set the record straight.
>>>
>>> 1. I made sure the Cherokee IO Cache is enabled.
>>> 2. I installed the Wordpress SuperCache plugin.  It appears it is really
>>> built for apache and only "half supports" other servers.
>>> 3. I reduced my php memory_limit to 64MB, in case grabbing for more
>>> memory was causing thrashing.  No effect.
>>>
>>> I am getting *lots* of 500 errors, lots of partial pages and occasional
>>> "could not connect" errors, all of which are corrected by a page reload.
>>>
>>> I am seeing all of this with both Firefox 3.6 and IE8.
>>>
>>> What I'm seeing in my logs is this:
>>>
>>> {'type': "error", 'time': "24/07/2010 20:10:39.594", 'title': "ALERT -
>>> script tried to increase memory_limit to 268435456 bytes which is above the
>>> allowed value (attacker '<ip-address>', file
>>> '/srv/www.<mydomain>.com/public_html/blog/wp-admin/admin.php', line 96)
>>> ", 'code': "handler_fcgi.c:118", 'error': "42", 'version': "1.0.5",
>>> 'compilation_date': "Jul  7 2010 01:32:03", 'configure_args': "
>>> '--host=x86_64-linux-gnu' '--build=x86_64-linux-gnu'
>>> '--enable-os-string=Ubuntu' '--enable-pthreads' '--prefix=/usr'
>>> '--localstatedir=/var' '--mandir=${prefix}/share/man'
>>> '--infodir=${prefix}/share/info' '--sysconfdir=/etc'
>>> '--docdir=/usr/share/doc/cherokee-doc' '--with-wwwroot=/var/www'
>>> '--with-included-gettext' 'build_alias=x86_64-linux-gnu'
>>> 'host_alias=x86_64-linux-gnu' 'CFLAGS=-Wall -g -O2'
>>> 'LDFLAGS=-Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions' 'CPPFLAGS=' '--host=x86_64-linux-gnu'
>>> '--build=x86_64-linux-gnu' '--enable-os-string=Ubuntu' '--enable-pthreads'
>>> '--prefix=/usr' '--localstatedir=/var' '--mandir=${prefix}/share/man'
>>> '--infodir=${prefix}/share/info' '--sysconfdir=/etc'
>>> '--docdir=/usr/share/doc/cherokee-doc' '--with-wwwroot=/var/www'
>>> '--with-included-gettext' 'build_alias=x86_64-linux-gnu'
>>> 'host_alias=x86_64-linux-gnu' 'CFLAGS=-Wall -g -O2'
>>> 'LDFLAGS=-Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions' 'CPPFLAGS='", 'backtrace': ""}
>>>
>>> where I have used <expressions> in angle backets to conceal my site.
>>> Note the very large amount of memory which the fcgi is requesting!  It is
>>> interesting to note that 268435456 = 0x1000 0000 = 256 MB which seems a
>>> little suspicious to me since phpinfo() is correctly reporting that it is
>>> reading memory_limit=64M from the /etc/php5/cgi/php.ini file.
>>>
>>> If I dig into the stock wp-admin.php, I find this at lines 95-96:
>>>
>>> if ( current_user_can( 'manage_options' ) )
>>>         @ini_set( 'memory_limit', apply_filters( 'admin_memory_limit',
>>> '256M' ) );
>>>
>>> It looks like wordpress is asking for an awful lot of memory.
>>>
>>> So I still don;t have a solution to my problem, but I think I have an
>>> idea of what the problem is, and I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with
>>> Cherokee.
>>>
>>> Carlos
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 6:05 PM, C. Mundi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> I'm interested to hear from anyone who has deployed wordpress on
>>>> cherokee.  I have set up a trial system:
>>>>
>>>> ubuntu10 x64 VPS with sub-40ms pings from my browser
>>>> cherokee 1.05
>>>> mysql 5.1.37
>>>> php 5.2.10 with CGI/FastCGI and memory_limit=64M
>>>> wordpress 3.0
>>>>
>>>> This is a single instance of wordpress, embedded in a subdirectory of
>>>> one of several virtual servers hosted on this box, per
>>>> http://www.cherokee-project.com/doc/cookbook_wordpress.html
>>>>
>>>> The wordpress site performance is **horrible** out of the box.
>>>> Unusable.
>>>>
>>>> My django apps (on one of the other virtual servers) are snappy, and the
>>>> CPU never gets over 5%.  And phpmyadmin (embedded in its own directory on
>>>> the same virtual server as wordpress) runs fine as always.
>>>>
>>>> The system is under *very* light load -- its just for testing.
>>>>
>>>> Admittedly, this is the first time I've installed wordpress in over a
>>>> year, and all my past experience with wordpress is on apache.  I kind of
>>>> doubt that WP3 is suddenly worse than earlier versions of WP.
>>>>
>>>> I may try to serve wordpress from apache and see if maybe WP has been
>>>> tuned for apache in some way.
>>>>
>>>> As I said, I'm interested to hear from anyone who is serving WP with
>>>> cherokee, how well its working and what you did to tune it up.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cherokee mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
>>>
>>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

Reply via email to