All true, but we are running a 100K (Canadian) blade center, and at 255 apaches per server and 10 blades, thats ~2500 concurrent users. You have to have a pretty honking Sun box to manage that, certainly within the same price range, and another 15K buys me 40% more power.
I have come to the conclusion that Apache is ideally suited to the scale out vs scale up model, and in that instance prefork is probably even in terms of performance and flexibility with worker. Jeffrey Burgoyne Chief Technology Architect KCSI Keenuh Consulting Services Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > --On Monday, February 28, 2005 6:24 PM -0500 Jeffrey Burgoyne > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I can go even one step further. 255 servers, 2.5 Gig of ram, huge config > > (200 virtuals hosts, 1500 redirect rules, 2000 rewrite rules, 300 proxy > > rules) and I never go into swap using prefork. > > I believe 255 concurrent clients is really low now-a-days for high-end > production servers. Heck, 2.x's hard limit is 200,000 not 256. (Reason > #1001 why 2.x is better than 1.3.) =) > > It's when you start to get into several thousand concurrent connections > that I've found that the memory model of prefork starts to get painful. > And memory usage also depends on whether your OS does optimistic or > pessimistic memory allocation. It's impossible to run high MaxClients with > prefork on, say, Solaris without having large amounts of swap dedicated. > -- justin >
