On 10/15/2008 08:25 PM, Lars Eilebrecht wrote: > 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.
This is a pity, because then it will become much harder to debug this issue. Any chance you get shell access or that you can instruct the administrators in the service company to get the needed information for you? > 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 Ok. MaxSpareThreads is set to 75 with ThreadsPerChild 256. This means that StartServers 3 is pointless because after starting *one* process we already have way too much spare threads *overall*. So the other 2 processes will get killed immediately :-). So the slot with all threads in '.' is one of these currently unneeded processes. The picture shows that there are still more than MaxSpareThreads (=25) threads idle *overall*. Works as designed :-). Regards Rüdiger
