On Apr 8, 2005 12:23 AM, Shawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 08 April 2005 00:07, Travis Rousseau wrote: > > I have found most web hosting company's that have between > > 1,000-50,000+ sites use apache 1.3.33 due to the fact it has less bugs > > (others look at it as more bugs have been fixed) and then I find > > almost everyone else using apache 2.0.52 especially in house servers > > because of the amount of people using fedora core and it coming as the > > version in the end I find more websites to use apache 1.3.33 (when 500 > > websites are on one server equals to quite a bit more sites) but it > > seems as more servers use 2.0.52 from my views. > > > > Travis R. > > I don't claim to be an expert on the topic, I just determine what I need to > get the job done, so to speak... So take the following with a grain of salt. > Same. > I think the biggest difference between the two is threads support. Version > 1.x spawns new processes for each request, while Version 2.x can be set up to > do the same, or use multithreading. With recent attacks on our server I'm wondering about this, Is it better to multithread or spawn a new process when we get the attacks. The current situation: Normaly apache gets about 50 requests a second while it does just under 4mbps server load of 0.30ish. When under attack it does it gets all requests used up (550) and around 80mbps with a server load of 20.00 ish Now this is how I see it correct me if im wrong: Now our server is limited to 100Mbps so would it be better to go through the effort to get apache 2.0.52 to work on our server and use multithreading to use less cpu and more bandwidth or keep as is to use lots of cpu and not as much as it could be bandwidth? (Our server is a dual Xeon 2.6Ghz with HT on) If anyone understands what i think i just said what do you think?
> Any performance penalties/gains won't be > noticed unless you are handling very high volume servers. A number of Apache > applications are out there (like PHP), that may or may not work well with the > newer threading model. But, the newer threading model results in better > performance and scalability (?). Hmm if php and a few others dont work The above is not duable, still what do some of you think about the above situation i posted? > > My thoughts... > > Shawn > > ps. I like discussions like this - I get to dump what knowledge I have, and > get corrected by others more in the know when needed :). Somehow I learn > more from this than reading a book.. LOL > > Man i have almost $2000 in linux and OSS books and I could have just spent $1290 on windows :-P lol. I have learned way more through clug than I have the books. Travis R. _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
