On 4/29/09 4:59 PM, Charles Howse cho...@charter.net wrote:
I recall Bill Gates saying, 640k is enough for anybody. I agree,
it's not much of a savings, and there's always the possibility that
the webmaster may add something later that needs a module that's
commented, and run around in
On 4/28/09 6:45 PM, Adam Vandemore amvandem...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, here we go:
With Apache running on the development machine, modules commented as
in my first post --
CPU: 0.8% user, 0.0% nice, 0.4% system, 0.8% interrupt, 98.1% idle
Mem: 27M Active, 139M Inact, 64M Wired, 11M Cache,
On Apr 29, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Tom Worster wrote:
On 4/28/09 6:45 PM, Adam Vandemore amvandem...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, here we go:
With Apache running on the development machine, modules commented as
in my first post --
CPU: 0.8% user, 0.0% nice, 0.4% system, 0.8% interrupt, 98.1%
idle
Hi,
I ran across this web page the other day, and it seems like a
reasonable choice for me (running on kinda low-end hardware).
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/misc/perf-tuning.html#compiletime
I have these modules in my config for my development server, and I
use the term loosely, it's
On 4/28/09 3:14 PM, Charles Howse cho...@charter.net wrote:
Can anyone see anything that I've commented that I'll be sorry for?
Can anyone suggest any more testing I should do?
unfortunately i can't but i'd like to ask you to tell us, once you're done
with removing modules, how much memory you
On Apr 28, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Tom Worster wrote:
On 4/28/09 3:14 PM, Charles Howse cho...@charter.net wrote:
Can anyone see anything that I've commented that I'll be sorry for?
Can anyone suggest any more testing I should do?
unfortunately i can't but i'd like to ask you to tell us, once
Charles Howse wrote:
On Apr 28, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Tom Worster wrote:
On 4/28/09 3:14 PM, Charles Howse cho...@charter.net wrote:
Can anyone see anything that I've commented that I'll be sorry for?
Can anyone suggest any more testing I should do?
unfortunately i can't but i'd like to ask
