Travers Carter a écrit :
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:45:36 +0300, Noor
>
> wrote:
>
>> And while you're at it, I'll through in another question: How does
>> eAccelerator/FastCGI manage the shared memory segments? According to
>> eAccelerator's homepage, it'll share such segments when the spawning
Way too involved of a question for this list :)
I'd suspect that your application is fairly heavy judging from avg response
times and that if you ran it from a script without involving fastcgi or
apache you'd see similar throughput.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Noor wrote:
> Hello list.
>
Well, it is a Web application and I know that hitting the Web server
manually (using telnet to port 80) is so much faster than the alleged
2.0 seconds response time I get with Siege.
So, the question remains: Why am I seeing relatively faster responses
with less processes??
Noor
On Thu, Aug 20,
Travers Carter wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:45:36 +0300, Noor
>
> wrote:
>> And while you're at it, I'll through in another question: How does
>> eAccelerator/FastCGI manage the shared memory segments? According to
>> eAccelerator's homepage, it'll share such segments when the spawning
>> proce
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:45:36 +0300, Noor
wrote:
>
> And while you're at it, I'll through in another question: How does
> eAccelerator/FastCGI manage the shared memory segments? According to
> eAccelerator's homepage, it'll share such segments when the spawning
> process is shared. In the case of
Hello list.
(I hope I'm posting to the right mailing list. If not, then I
apologize already and ask you to direct me to the right list. Thanks!)
I've setup the following configuration on a Dell 2940 2 x Quad-Core
with 4GB RAM:
- FreeBSD 7.2-STABLE amd64 bit. Kernel recompiled with minimal
option
