On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 07:37:31AM +0000, Stephen Gran via RT wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Holger Levsen via RT said: > > <URL: https://rt.debian.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=1298 > > > > > On Montag, 20. April 2009, Stephen Gran via RT wrote: > > > A quick look at the munin stats suggests we don't use all that much > > > bandwidth at present (or cpu, for that matter) so maybe it doesn't > > > matter either way?
By the way, there are 0 figures for apache access / volume on http://munin.debian.org/debian.org/klecker.debian.org.html > > ain't there are third factor to consider: the bandwidth(+cpu) used on the > > user > > side? if the user has little bandwidth, mod_gzip enhances the browsing > > experience (if cpu is available to unzip). > > Sure, it's a factor to take into account, but I don't think it's worth > changing the setup for a hypothetical issue. I'm only talking at > present about issues we can actualy measure, which lead me to believe we > don't need to make any changes. Given the high volume of static text content, we can think it (at least) worth the try. And you're right, that's currently not a issue, but a possible improvement. Apache will cache the compressed pages anyway, so the CPU impact would not be that high, for an improved downloading time (serveral dozens of %) on the user side where the pages will display faster. And since the compression level can set, it can be used to tune the CPU usage. Best regards. -- Simon Paillard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
