But wouldn't that setting also be affecting serving of static pages? Right now I am getting 5000-8000 requests per second locally or about 1200 over the wire for static files through Apache.
I was able to get 185 requests per second out of Mongrel, but that is still a bit underwhelming. I spent a few hours today studying the Apache docs and settings for mod_proxy and mod_proxy_balancer and testing different configs, but nothing made much difference. Right now a single mongrel process (not behind Apache) is pushing 90-100 requests per second with my real app (not just a hello world controller). So I am at a loss as to how the benefits are maxing out at 2 mongrels when behind Apache. On Jan 18, 3:48 pm, "Tom Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Apache's mod_proxy_balancer module is a fully blocking module and > > with the default httpd.conf you're going to max out in the 120-160 > > requests/ second range on a decent box. You can tune up its proxying > > to about a 1000 req/sec. So yes the net result is that you can really > > only put a couple of mongrels behind apache's proxy engine (about 2 > > "hello world" rails mongrels)." > > Hm, would that still be accurate if you set DEFAULT_SERVER_LIMIT to a higher > value (from 256 up to 2048 or so) and then set MaxClients to that value? > Wouldn't that open things up a bit? > > Yours, > > Tom --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Deploying Rails" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-deployment@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-deployment?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
