Am 06.03.2013 22:30, schrieb Alan McKinnon: > On 06/03/2013 23:22, Michael Mol wrote: >> On 03/06/2013 04:07 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: >>> On 06/03/2013 22:59, Michael Mol wrote: >>>> On 03/06/2013 03:54 PM, Grant wrote: >>>>> I lowered my MaxClients setting in apache a long time ago after >>>>> running out of memory a couple times. I recently optimized my >>>>> website's code and sped the site way up, and now I find myself >>>>> periodically up against MaxClients. Is a RAM upgrade the only >>>>> practical way to solve this sort of problem? >>>> >>>> Use a reverse proxy in caching mode. >>>> >>>> A request served up by the proxy server is a request not served up by >>>> Apache. >>>> >>>> Squid, nginx and varnish are all decent for the purpose, though squid >>>> and nginx are probably the more polished than varnish. >>>> >>> >>> Grant, >>> >>> If you optimized the site well, I would imagine your RAM needs per page >>> request would go down and you could possibly increase MaxClients again. >>> Have you given it a try since the optimization? Increase it slowly bit >>> by bit comparing the current performance with what it used to be, and >>> make your judgement call. >>> >>> Is there some reason why you can't just add more memory to the server? >>> It's a fast and very cheap and very effective performance booster with >>> very little downtime. But if your slots are full and you need new >>> hardware, that's a different story. >>> >>> Michael's proxy suggestion is excellent too - I use nginx for this a >>> lot. It's amazingly easy to set up, a complete breath of fresh air after >>> the gigantic do-all beast that is apache. Performance depends a lot on >>> what your sites actually do, if every page is dynamic with changing >>> content then a reverse proxy doesn't help much. Only you know what your >>> page content is like. >> >> The thing to remember is that clients request a *lot* of static content, >> too. CSS styles, small images, large images...these cache very well, and >> (IME) represent the bulk of the request numbers. > > <bang head> > Yes, of course. You are perfectly correct, I forget all about that > "invisible" stuff in the background > </bang head> > > > >> >> Unfortunately, with the way mod_php and friends work with Apache, >> resources consumed by static file requests aren't trivial once you >> realize that the big problem is with the number of concurrent >> requests...so it's best if those can be snapped up by something else, first. >> >> I've been running squid in front of my server for a few years. I've been >> eyeing CloudFlare, though; they're a CDN that behaves like a reverse >> proxy. You point their system at your server, your DNS at their system, >> and they'll do the heavy lifting for you. (And far better than having >> your own singular caching server would. I've worked at a CDN, and what >> they accomplish is pretty slick.) >> >> >> > >
To optimize the caching potential, there are a few tricks. There's an older tech talk about that from a Yahoo guy [1]. Google's advices are also worth reading [2] and for a quick and dirty solution, look at [3]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTHvs3V8DBA [2] https://developers.google.com/speed/docs/best-practices/caching?hl=de [3] http://fennb.com/microcaching-speed-your-app-up-250x-with-no-n BTW: What's the current status of MPM Worker or Event and PHP? Does it work? Does it help? Hope this helps, Florian Philipp
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
