Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Is it really a good idea to use mod_mem_cache? Keep in mind that
> mod_mem_cache uses local caches per process and cannot use sendfile
> to send cached data. It seems that mod_disk_cache with a cache root
> on a ram disk could be more efficient here.
No, it really isn't a good idea, and it wasn't my idea. ;-)
I just started working at that company, and the frontend
servers are even managed by another service company so I
don't even have shell access to the servers.
But I'm pushing for a switch to mod_disk_cache.
> > The first odd thing is that I would have expected that Apache
> > uses all child processes about equally. Especially I would
> > have expected that there are at least 25 threads for the second
> > process in state "_" (waiting for connection), because the
> > MinSpareThread directive is set to 25.
>
> This is indeed strange. Mind to
>
> 1. Attach an ASCII-output of the whole status page to see the exact
> process / thread slot usage.
> 2. Your MPM configuration and your reverse proxy configuration.
Here's the mpm config:
MaxMemFree 1024
ThreadLimit 256
ServerLimit 3
StartServers 3
MaxClients 768
MinSpareThreads 25
MaxSpareThreads 75
ThreadsPerChild 256
MaxRequestsPerChild 2000000
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
