On 3/17/06, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/17/06, Leon Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Have you tried it? ;) > > > > Yeah, and it didn't add any performance. However it helped to keep the > > thread count low. But it was on 2.4.x kernel, where threads were an > > issue, on 2.6.x its pointless (at least until you really has something > > to cache :-) ) > > If you're using Squid instead of Apache it can really help as setting > up Apache to handle lots of concurrent connections is not easy: With a > standard config on Unix you end up with a httpd process per > connection, with one of the less tested MPMs you still end up with a > thread.
That's true, but there is nothing to get by putting an apache infront of tomcat. So we are not talking about squid vs apache, but about squid-tomcat vs tomcat. I think with 2.4.6 kernel 1024 threads shouldn't be a problem, if they are mostly inactive. If they aren't inactive, well the load on the cpu will determine the amound of threads you can support. > > With a typical Apache process consuming at least 4MB of memory, all of > a sudden supporting 1000+ connections at the same time because not so > trivial, not to mention the severe memory thrashing that occurs > context switching between all those processes. > > It looks like Apache 2.2 supports using a separate thread for the sole > task of keeping track of keep-alives, but you have to use the event > MPM. http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/event.html > > I haven't tried Apache 2.2 yet, and I haven't had luck with any other > MPM besides prefork, but then again, I haven't tried any other MPMs > recently, either. > > -Dave > > -Dave > Leon > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
