On 15 October 2012 06:04, Tim Starling <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's processes, not memory. I would think that the effect on memory > would not be so large. Memory taken appears to be processes * PHP memory_limit . Unless I'm ludicrously wrong about that. > Disabling keep-alive should be counted as a > fairly desperate measure given the large impact on end user latencies. The RW box makes me think of a Bugs Bunny cartoon steam engine, flexing from side to side, belching clouds of black smoke and making ominous noises. I'm frantically running around with gaffer tape. Platonides' suggestion to switch KeepAlive on with a short timeout sounds worth trying, and I might do that this evening. > I haven't ever had to run a high-traffic wiki apart from Wikipedia, > but if one of my little VPS wikis got slashdotted, I think the first > thing I would do is install Squid. Would Varnish achieve much the same? I'm slightly familiar with Varnish (we use it at work and it makes our much-less-stressed LAMP box quite happy with no KeepAlive. > The MW file cache might be fast, but Squid is always going to be faster. We're quite fond of our "This article has been viewed x times" at the bottom of the pages, though I'm quite aware that's an expensive affectation that we may well have outgrown. *sigh* - d. _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
