On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, ___cliff rayman___ wrote: > i and others have written on the list before, that pushing apache > children into swap causes a rapid downward spiral in performance. > I don't think that MaxClients is the right way to limit the # of children. i think > MaxSpareCoreMemory would make more sense. You could > set this to 1K if your server was designated for Apache > only, or set it to a higher value if it were a multipurpose machine. > mod_perl/apache and paging/swapping just don't mix. Once I wrote a patch to apache so that it would not spawn new children if a certain file was present in the filesystem. You can then have a watchdog process touch or delete that file based on any criteria you want. Imo having a separate and flexible process is better than apache trying to make these decisions... I'll dig it up if interested. -Balazs
- Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_p... Gunther Birznieks
- Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_p... Sam Horrocks
- Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_p... Perrin Harkins
- killing of greater than MaxSpareServers ___cliff rayman___
- Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers Perrin Harkins
- Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers ___cliff rayman___
- Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers Perrin Harkins
- Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers ___cliff rayman___
- Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers Jayme Frye
- Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers ___cliff rayman___
- Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers Balazs Rauznitz
- Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers ___cliff rayman___
- Re: killing of greater than MaxSpareServers Balazs Rauznitz
- Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_p... Buddy Lee Haystack
- Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_p... Sam Horrocks
- Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_p... Christian Jaeger
- Re: Fwd: [speedycgi] Speedycgi scales better than mod_p... Sam Horrocks