Re: Another question
Check the Readme's with the Kernel source - there is actualy a device you have to mount in your fstab file (you know, for bootup;) that enables shared memory. It uses a "imaginary" mount point like /proc does. However, as far as I know, "free" and friends don't show the shared memory in use correctly (though df showes the mount point...) Sorry I can't remember the exact command, if you can't find it - please let me know and I will dig it up from a server I have it setup on. -Nathan > Maybe I missed it, but what's the deal with the new kernels (2.4.0xxx) > and shared memory? From top: > > CPU states: 5.2% user, 1.8% system, 0.0% nice, 93.0% idle > Mem: 78592K av, 75848K used, 2744K free, 0K shrd, 1932K buff > Swap: 185464K av, 11520K used, 173944K free 40308K cached > > > Shared mem is always 0 ? > > Tim > >
Re: reiserfs & databases.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Nathan E Norman wrote: >On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 04:36:23PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote: >> but, there are some commercial databases which keep their data directly >> on partitions ( this should be much better then any *fs including >> reiserfs) and the weird part is that that direct-partition instalation >> scheme seems to be a little bit slower that fs-based in benchmarks. >> And this means that I'm missing something here, what is it that I haven't >> thought about, anyone, any comments on this? > >If I understand your question, you're saying that RDBMs do benchmark >faster using a native filesystems rather than rolling their own on >a partition, and you're wondering why ... I would have to hazard a >guess that the operating system disk cache and buffers are coming >into play when you're using a native filesystem, but there's no >caching when a "raw" partition is used. The idea is that the database vendor knows their data storage better than the OS can guess it, and that knowledge allows them to implement better caching algorithms than the OS can use. The fact that benchmark results show that raw partition access is slower indicates that the databases aren't written as well as they are supposed to be. The concept of the database being able to cache better than the OS sounds reasonable, but seems to not work in practise. I have seen other examples of similar principles. One of which was someone who did tests with IBM's HPFS386 file system for server versions of OS/2. He tried using 2M of cache with HPFS386 and 16M of physical cache in a caching hard drive controller and using 18M of HPFS386 cache with no cache on the controller. The results were surprisingly close on real-world tests such as compiling large projects. It seemed that 2M of cache was enough to cache directory entries and other file-system meta-data and cache apart from that worked on a LRU basis anyway. Russell Coker
Re: what is sufficient free memory?
> 70 processes: 69 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped > CPU states: 0.1% user, 0.7% system, 0.0% nice, 99.0% idle > Mem: 63124K av, 61296K used, 1828K free, 36880K shrd, 7712K buff > Swap: 104380K av, 3128K used, 101252K free 35860K > cached This doesen't look like a problem but like a perfectly healthy server. No metter how much RAM you put in it there'll always be only about 2 megs left, because of machine's fs caching, that uses any free ram to hold pieces of often used files. > "all-in-one" box running DNS, squid, postfix, apache and radius (I have > 17 modems on it's cyclades). Any recommendations on the "bare-minimum" > RAM for this configuration? The suits at our purchasing division are 64Megs if perfectly enough, i know people that used to run such boxes witch 16Megs of ram. What you should look at is swap that is used (3 megs? only? and that's a problem? ) > need to know if I need to "demand" that they "immediately" cough-up the > 128mb (or more). now of course you should demand more ram, common, squid is a real memory hogger, but you can tell it how much ram you want it to use (things like cache_mem etc), , apache can eat memory like crazy ( especially mine, with perl modules compiled in ) regards, Eyck
Re: what is sufficient free memory?
sorry for my last post, I haven't noticed that you people told everything already. > To paint a better picture, here's an entire top screen: just a little hint - don't sort your processes by cpu usage when you want to check memory usage ( just press big 'M' and it'll all clear up ) regards, slow Eyck
Re: reiserfs & databases.
to sum things up - my idea to use reiserfs as database placeholder ain't that stupid. - modern fs's do better job that commercial database designers well, actually I'm using postgresql which can't use raw partitions anyway. thanks for the response.
MySQL vs. Postgres
Hi, where setting up some servers for a small ISP, they want to have a SQL database, but i`m in doubt. Which one would you recommend, mysql or postgres? The SQL database will be used in combination with PHP3 (or 4) to generate dynamic websites. greets, ::: (o 0) +|||_o_|||-+ | Arno Vije| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | www.linuxinfo.nl | +--v---v---+
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 06:34:54PM +0200, Arno Vije wrote: > where setting up some servers for a small ISP, > they want to have a SQL database, but i`m in > doubt. Which one would you recommend, mysql or postgres? > The SQL database will be used in combination with PHP3 (or 4) > to generate dynamic websites. If you don't need record-level locking, rollbacks, etc. then I would recommend MySQL, simply because it's very fast. -- Art Sackett
Apache vhosts dinamically alias
I have each virtual host under /var/www I want to enable a virtualhostA.com/stats URL that points to /var/stats/virtualhostA.com same for virtualhostB, etc I've tried Alias /%1/stats/var/stasts/%1 with no success any Ideas? thanks, jaume.
Proftpd 226 message
After upgrading proftp to 1.2.0pre10-2 now when an user connect to ftp site, for each directory that browsers on gets stupid message: 226-Transfer complete. 226 Quotas off how to disable this ?¿ thanks, jaume.
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
> If you don't need record-level locking, rollbacks, etc. then I would > recommend MySQL, simply because it's very fast. Hmm, if you need fast why use sql server? you could use databases in files. they're fast, simple etc. If you need to create apps based on SQL you will need transactions, and record-level locking 'll make them fast. And for that you need something advanced like postgresql. OTOH most simple things assume that you use mysql, so your users would prefer mysql. most php apps need apache+php3+mysql. regards, Eyck.
RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages into ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice about mySQL is that it's load can get rather high if you have a large database. (we have 5k records in a realestate database so there's a pile of fields too that we have broken into 50 different tables to optimize the searches). If you plan on running a dynamic website, we aware of the following issues. 1) You will need more horsepower that you likely think. (true in my experience with this solution) 2) Search engines will NOT index php pages or asp pages and the like nearly as well as static pages. This is a big deal if you are looking for traffic to this site. 3) If you decided to go this way, offload the mySQL to a box on it's own, you will see marked improvement. We moved ours to a 700 with 512 megs of ram and it's almost acceptable. (we get a few searches a minute, not a lot, but definately busy) My 2 and a half cents Scott Thompson Programming & Server Admin Internet Brokers Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.internetbrokers.ab.ca Office: (403) 232-1032 Fax: (403) 265-2843 -Original Message- From: Arno Vije [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 9:35 AM To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org Subject: MySQL vs. Postgres Hi, where setting up some servers for a small ISP, they want to have a SQL database, but i`m in doubt. Which one would you recommend, mysql or postgres? The SQL database will be used in combination with PHP3 (or 4) to generate dynamic websites. greets, ::: (o 0) +|||_o_|||-+ | Arno Vije| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | www.linuxinfo.nl | +--v---v---+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: reiserfs & databases.
[...] RC> The idea is that the database vendor knows their data storage RC> better than the OS can guess it, and that knowledge allows RC> them to implement better caching algorithms than the OS can RC> use. The fact that benchmark results show that raw partition RC> access is slower indicates that the databases aren't written RC> as well as they are supposed to be. I am not convinced that this conclusion is warranted, though I admit I have not seen those benchmarks. The DB vendor's raw disk driver might be doing things like synchronous writes for maintaining its own invariants, while a [non-journalling] file system will care about fs meta-data consistency at best. While it is possible that the general purpose file system with more man-hours behind it is better written, the benchmarks might be omitting crucial criteria like crash protection and such. Do you guys have references to benchmarking data? RC> ... One of RC> which was someone who did tests with IBM's HPFS386 file system RC> for server versions of OS/2. He tried using 2M of cache with RC> HPFS386 and 16M of physical cache in a caching hard drive RC> controller and using 18M of HPFS386 cache with no cache on the RC> controller. The results were surprisingly close on real-world RC> tests such as compiling large projects. It seemed that 2M of RC> cache was enough to cache directory entries and other RC> file-system meta-data and cache apart from that worked on a RC> LRU basis anyway. This I would buy, as you point out the controller and the FS code are doing the same thing (if they are giving the same write guarantees). BM
RE: Apache vhosts dinamically alias
Hmm... This might work... In your virtualhost declaration in httpd.conf place the Alias definition such as "Alias /stats/ /var/stats/virtualhosta.com" For example: ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] DocumentRoot /var/WWW ServerName www.virtualhosta.com Alias /stats/ /var/stats/virtualhosta.com You can place any httpd.conf, srm.conf, access.conf etc. statement inside a virtualhost declaration. There might be a faster to go about this, such as if you had a lot of virtual hosts, but this should work. Brian Jones Network Specialist Northroute Networks Ltd. (807) 346-4266 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.northroute.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jaume Teixi Sent: August 30, 2000 2:04 PM To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org; Debian User Subject: Apache vhosts dinamically alias Importance: High I have each virtual host under /var/www I want to enable a virtualhostA.com/stats URL that points to /var/stats/virtualhostA.com same for virtualhostB, etc I've tried Alias /%1/stats/var/stasts/%1 with no success any Ideas? thanks, jaume. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Apache vhosts dinamically alias
> For example: > > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > DocumentRoot /var/WWW > ServerName www.virtualhosta.com > Alias /stats/ /var/stats/virtualhosta.com > I think he ment mass_vhost from mod_vhost_alias or sth. Maybe mod_rewrite could help you in this case?
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
hi, Sorry, not that familiar with sql servers. postgres is using record-level locking, what does mysql do, is it locking the whole table ? what are rollbacks? what other advantages are there in using postgres instead of mysql ? i maintain a small hosting server, that runs mysql (beside apache, exim etc) but as the traffic is getting higher we think about setting up a dedicated database server. Our customers mainly use mysql, but we are planing to set up some complex web apps. So what do you propose? A solution would be to run postgres beside mysql on that server. and what do you propose for bigger sql apsp with permanent database usage. php , apache-module (perl or c), cgi ? what experience do you have with the performance ? kind regards, achim hendriks < > If you don't need record-level locking, rollbacks, etc. then I would > recommend MySQL, simply because it's very fast. Hmm, if you need fast why use sql server? you could use databases in files. they're fast, simple etc. If you need to create apps based on SQL you will need transactions, and record-level locking 'll make them fast. And for that you need something advanced like postgresql. OTOH most simple things assume that you use mysql, so your users would prefer mysql. most php apps need apache+php3+mysql. regards, Eyck. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache mod_rewrite
I need to do the following in order to access stats for each based
virtual host
when typing url www.virtualhost1.com/stats or
www.virtualhost99.com/stats
server page located under /var/reports/virtualhost1 or
/var/reports/virtualhost99
I've tryed on my httpd.conf:
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST}^www\.[^.]+$
RewriteRule ^(.+) %{HTTP_HOST}$1 [C]
RewriteRule ^www\.([^.]+)(.*)/stats/var/reports/$1
Apache produces a 404
any points to fix this ?
Bests,
jaume.
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
> postgres is using record-level locking, what does mysql do, is it > locking the whole table ? what are rollbacks? what other advantages are AFAIK mysql locks whole table, rollback is term used with transaction - thing is, you put some sql statements inside transaction, and one of them fail, you rollback all your changes so your database is in consistent state. This is very important thing especially in networked apps (and that's what you need sql server for, don't you?). I'm probably a little bit biassed against mysql, since in their docs they talk about transactions like their useless and that's why they haven't implement them ( and not because they don't know how ;). And according to my knowledge transactions are one of the fundaments of database programming. > there in using postgres instead of mysql ? It's only my personal opinion postgres is more secure due to easier administration and ability to define remote access permissions easily and precisely. > are planing to set up some complex web apps. So what do you propose? > A solution would be to run postgres beside mysql on that server. they are both sql server, with postgres being more advanced and mysql being faster. There are only little differences in their sql ( there is book on postgresql being printed and accessible in pdf format at www.postgresql.org, which highlights any additions to SQL/92 standard so you can easily write SQL/92 conformant apps ) so it should be fairly easy to port all apps to postgres. Of course it's easy to rewrite int(11) to SQL/92 sql type, but when you do that on 100 customers apps it could be a major pain in ass. Little note about speed - you gain much more speed by proper setup (indices on other disks that actuall data, proper transactions, smartly using subselects and things like that. ) that by using simplier sql server. But you already know that first thing to optimize is an algorithm not the compiler. > and what do you propose for bigger sql apsp with permanent database > usage. php , apache-module (perl or c), cgi ? what experience do you have > with the performance ? I've been doing some apps in php3 and asp with sql on oracle. also cgi in perl and c. CGI generaly is very slow thing, no metter if you use perl,c or asm. but that's known fact. If you want to be fast you use things like mod-perl or interpreters like php or asp. Based on my knowledge and experience the fastest solution are pure mod-perl apps. but they're hard to impelement. My favourite solution is Apache::Asp module, with which you get transparent permanent database connections packaged with ease of development and top-notch performance. Second best solution would be php4 compiled with zend. You probably already know that php4/zend is faster than asp. php3 is slower. Probably, because differences ain't that big, maybe I've seen bad benchmarks. For me it's easier to deploy perl-based solution then php-one, but php-programmers are easy to buy and they're cheap. there ain't that much perl hackers outhere, although perl is very easy to learn. Although I have quite a lot of arguments to use perl and asp to build web apps, argument about cheap programmers is very important and you can't overlook it. Maybe situation is different where you live. There is also another fast and advanced solution which is aolserver. It's multithreaded (thing you get with apache 2.0 if you're brave, but aolserver is stable, been multithreaded for like years..), the only issue is programmers - If you can easily get people to programm in scheme or lisp ( i think that's aolserver's scripting language.. maybe I've mistaken it with sth more exotic ). And here you've got the same issue as with perl - aolserver is fast, scheme is quite easy to learn ( it took me two days to learn it enough to pass some exams, and I must say that it wasn't luck, I actually learned it ) but you can't find scheme programmers out on the street. But if you can, check out aolserver. There are also things like Oracle Application Server, which is extremely slow, probably due to overusage of Corba technology. To sum things up - php4+apache+postgres would be the cheapest and most promising solution (php is evolving quickly, it is already quite nice tool, although you get the feeling of using something young and not very mature) - asp+apache+postgres - you get very fast development, ability to tune your instalation as much as you want, all the nice stuff like sessions, transparent persistent database connections ( you write normal code, but Apache::ASP keeps cache of connections and gives you already connected handle without you knowing anything about it happening ). You get all numerous perl modules. And it's real programming language. But first you must find programmers who can write the code or are willing to learn. and perl is very RAM-hungry. - php3+apache+mysql - with that setup you're set up. it's most common
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
On Wed, 30.08.00 18:02 +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote: > Hmm, if you need fast why use sql server? you could use databases > in files. they're fast, simple etc. Which file based database system is faster than mysql? I tried Berkeley db3 (although with transaction code) and it was horrible slow! bye, -chrstian- -- You know you're a nerd when your os uptime is longer than you've ever had a girlfriend. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
My workplace used php3 + mysql, then php3 + oracle, now looking at a combination of php3 + local mysql + master oracle db (the local mysql db's would act as caches for fast answers to most page queries). This is for scalability and availability reasons. php most commonly used with mysql, told by php dudes it's better supported, and php4 + mysql further the integration, projects cooperating. mysql are doing work on replicating the db which would be a nice thing to have for scalability. > We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with > the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages into > ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The > performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice about Rather surprised by that, wonder what the hit rate was. On the web server I run which has been pretty busy at times (1GB served less than a week, daily access logs of 60-70MB), the php and apache usage was virtually undectable, p3 650 256MB. Basically DB access and network download times, swamped out anything that the PHP interpreter does. > mySQL is that it's load can get rather high if you have a large database. > (we have 5k records in a realestate database so there's a pile of fields too > that we have broken into 50 different tables to optimize the searches). > > If you plan on running a dynamic website, we aware of the following issues. > 1) You will need more horsepower that you likely think. (true in my > experience with this solution) > 2) Search engines will NOT index php pages or asp pages and the like nearly > as well as static pages. This is a big deal if you are looking for traffic > to this site. > 3) If you decided to go this way, offload the mySQL to a box on it's own, > you will see marked improvement. We moved ours to a 700 with 512 megs of ram > and it's almost acceptable. (we get a few searches a minute, not a lot, but > definately busy)
RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
Some stats for you. Keep in mind that these are only for the webserver. Hits Bytes Visits PViews Month 8,891,404 58,798,965,869 211,007 1,528,073 Jun 2000 10,853,047 57,775,413,897 224,862 1,375,197 Jul 2000 9,121,259 53,851,857,460 210,680 1,421,053 Aug 2000 Granted we have other clients, but I would guess that 60-80% of the consumers are 'real estate interested'. > We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with > the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages into > ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The > performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice about Rather surprised by that, wonder what the hit rate was. On the web server I run which has been pretty busy at times (1GB served less than a week, daily access logs of 60-70MB), the php and apache usage was virtually undectable, p3 650 256MB. Basically DB access and network download times, swamped out anything that the PHP interpreter does. > mySQL is that it's load can get rather high if you have a large database. > (we have 5k records in a realestate database so there's a pile of fields too > that we have broken into 50 different tables to optimize the searches). > > If you plan on running a dynamic website, we aware of the following issues. > 1) You will need more horsepower that you likely think. (true in my > experience with this solution) > 2) Search engines will NOT index php pages or asp pages and the like nearly > as well as static pages. This is a big deal if you are looking for traffic > to this site. > 3) If you decided to go this way, offload the mySQL to a box on it's own, > you will see marked improvement. We moved ours to a 700 with 512 megs of ram > and it's almost acceptable. (we get a few searches a minute, not a lot, but > definately busy)
RE: routing
Alright I've run into another problem or maybe I'm just dumb. 208.3.69.1 is the main router connected to the internet. 208.3.69.2 (eth0) is the device connected via ethernet to the main router on the linux router/bridge. 208.3.69.4 (eth1) goes to the client (208.3.69.3). The main router is a cisco and its routes look like: ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial0/1 ip route 208.3.69.0 255.255.255.0 Ethernet0/0 ip route 208.3.69.3 255.255.255.255 208.3.69.2 The linux router/bridge has routes of: 208.3.69.3 * 255.255.255.255 UH0 00 eth1 208.3.69.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 eth0 default 208.3.69.1 0.0.0.0 UG1 00 eth0 The client has a gw of 208.3.69.4. When I try to ping the main router from the client it doesn't work. tcpdump on eth1 shows: 06:33:35.687012 arp who-has 208.3.69.1 tell 208.3.69.3 (repeated) Nothing shows up on eth0. When I try to ping 208.3.69.3 from the main router (208.3.69.1) tcpdump on eth0 shows: 06:48:45.166405 208.3.69.1 > 208.3.69.3: icmp: echo request (repeated) On eth1: 6:49:50.926361 208.3.69.1 > 208.3.69.3: icmp: echo request 06:49:50.929978 arp who-has 208.3.69.1 tell 208.3.69.3 06:49:52.928131 208.3.69.1 > 208.3.69.3: icmp: echo request 06:49:52.931469 arp who-has 208.3.69.1 tell 208.3.69.3 Is it something wrong with my routes? Or do I just suck? Thanks. -- Kevin - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: routing
You are setting 255.255.255.0 netmasks so the machines are expecting to find .1 .2 .3 machines on the local ethernet interfaces. I don't know why you are doing it like that, but what would fix your problem is getting the Linux router machine to do a proxy-arp. You can turn this on by echo'ing the apporiate incantation to proc. Documentation/proc.txt in your linux source directory should give you the details. cheers, BM
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
> > > postgres is using record-level locking, what does mysql do, is it > > locking the whole table ? what are rollbacks? what other advantages are > AFAIK mysql locks whole table, > rollback is term used with transaction - thing is, you put some sql > statements inside transaction, and one of them fail, you rollback all your > changes so your database is in consistent state. > This is very important thing especially in networked apps (and that's what > you need sql server for, don't you?). > I'm probably a little bit biassed against mysql, since in their docs they > talk about transactions like their useless and that's why they haven't > implement them ( and not because they don't know how ;). > And according to my knowledge transactions are one of the fundaments > of database programming. > I disagree with Eyck on this. I am a database programmer, have been since dBase II back in the early '80s. It all depends upon the application. Transactions are very, very useful under some circumstances, but if you can do without them, you can speed your database engine up a lot. Same thing with Foreign Keys, which MySQL does not support. If your application is going to be a large database with multiple tables that will need to be updated simultaneously, then Eyck is 100% correct, you need a database that supports transactions. However, most of the web based stuff I write does not require this. I am generally updating only one table at a time. In this case, I go MySQL to decrease my resource requirements. > > > there in using postgres instead of mysql ? > It's only my personal opinion postgres is more secure due to easier > administration and ability to define remote access permissions > easily and precisely. MySQL has a weird way of setting permissions, but once you figure it out your permissions are granular down to the user/table/action, which is what I get out of the "Big O" also. Point is (and I don't want to turn this into a religious argument), choose one. If you choose MySQL and find that it doesn't do what you want, change a few lines in your scripts (or, maybe an access module used by all your scripts) and turn on postgres. If you choose postgres and find it is too slow, and have optimized your queries and tables, do the same thing and go to MySQL. Your scripts should remain essentially the same, especially if you keep all db access scripts in one location. <---snip> Rod
Re: Another question
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 11:35:10PM -0600, Nathan wrote: > Check the Readme's with the Kernel source - there is actualy a device you > have to mount in your fstab file (you know, for bootup;) that enables > shared memory. It uses a "imaginary" mount point like /proc does. OK, I found it. It actually uses a *real* mount point. From the docs: none/dev/shmshm defaults0 0 Thanks, Tim -- >< >> Tim Sailer (at home) >< Coastal Internet, Inc. << >> Network and Systems Operations >< PO Box 671 << >> http://www.buoy.com >< Ridge, NY 11961 << >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED] >< (631) 476-3031 << ><
Re: reiserfs & databases.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Nathan E Norman wrote: >On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 04:36:23PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote: >> but, there are some commercial databases which keep their data directly >> on partitions ( this should be much better then any *fs including >> reiserfs) and the weird part is that that direct-partition instalation >> scheme seems to be a little bit slower that fs-based in benchmarks. >> And this means that I'm missing something here, what is it that I haven't >> thought about, anyone, any comments on this? > >If I understand your question, you're saying that RDBMs do benchmark >faster using a native filesystems rather than rolling their own on >a partition, and you're wondering why ... I would have to hazard a >guess that the operating system disk cache and buffers are coming >into play when you're using a native filesystem, but there's no >caching when a "raw" partition is used. The idea is that the database vendor knows their data storage better than the OS can guess it, and that knowledge allows them to implement better caching algorithms than the OS can use. The fact that benchmark results show that raw partition access is slower indicates that the databases aren't written as well as they are supposed to be. The concept of the database being able to cache better than the OS sounds reasonable, but seems to not work in practise. I have seen other examples of similar principles. One of which was someone who did tests with IBM's HPFS386 file system for server versions of OS/2. He tried using 2M of cache with HPFS386 and 16M of physical cache in a caching hard drive controller and using 18M of HPFS386 cache with no cache on the controller. The results were surprisingly close on real-world tests such as compiling large projects. It seemed that 2M of cache was enough to cache directory entries and other file-system meta-data and cache apart from that worked on a LRU basis anyway. Russell Coker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is sufficient free memory?
> 70 processes: 69 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped > CPU states: 0.1% user, 0.7% system, 0.0% nice, 99.0% idle > Mem: 63124K av, 61296K used, 1828K free, 36880K shrd, 7712K buff > Swap: 104380K av, 3128K used, 101252K free 35860K > cached This doesen't look like a problem but like a perfectly healthy server. No metter how much RAM you put in it there'll always be only about 2 megs left, because of machine's fs caching, that uses any free ram to hold pieces of often used files. > "all-in-one" box running DNS, squid, postfix, apache and radius (I have > 17 modems on it's cyclades). Any recommendations on the "bare-minimum" > RAM for this configuration? The suits at our purchasing division are 64Megs if perfectly enough, i know people that used to run such boxes witch 16Megs of ram. What you should look at is swap that is used (3 megs? only? and that's a problem? ) > need to know if I need to "demand" that they "immediately" cough-up the > 128mb (or more). now of course you should demand more ram, common, squid is a real memory hogger, but you can tell it how much ram you want it to use (things like cache_mem etc), , apache can eat memory like crazy ( especially mine, with perl modules compiled in ) regards, Eyck -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is sufficient free memory?
sorry for my last post, I haven't noticed that you people told everything already. > To paint a better picture, here's an entire top screen: just a little hint - don't sort your processes by cpu usage when you want to check memory usage ( just press big 'M' and it'll all clear up ) regards, slow Eyck -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: reiserfs & databases.
to sum things up - my idea to use reiserfs as database placeholder ain't that stupid. - modern fs's do better job that commercial database designers well, actually I'm using postgresql which can't use raw partitions anyway. thanks for the response. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MySQL vs. Postgres
Hi, where setting up some servers for a small ISP, they want to have a SQL database, but i`m in doubt. Which one would you recommend, mysql or postgres? The SQL database will be used in combination with PHP3 (or 4) to generate dynamic websites. greets, ::: (o 0) +|||_o_|||-+ | Arno Vije| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | www.linuxinfo.nl | +--v---v---+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 06:34:54PM +0200, Arno Vije wrote: > where setting up some servers for a small ISP, > they want to have a SQL database, but i`m in > doubt. Which one would you recommend, mysql or postgres? > The SQL database will be used in combination with PHP3 (or 4) > to generate dynamic websites. If you don't need record-level locking, rollbacks, etc. then I would recommend MySQL, simply because it's very fast. -- Art Sackett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache vhosts dinamically alias
I have each virtual host under /var/www I want to enable a virtualhostA.com/stats URL that points to /var/stats/virtualhostA.com same for virtualhostB, etc I've tried Alias /%1/stats/var/stasts/%1 with no success any Ideas? thanks, jaume. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proftpd 226 message
After upgrading proftp to 1.2.0pre10-2 now when an user connect to ftp site, for each directory that browsers on gets stupid message: 226-Transfer complete. 226 Quotas off how to disable this ?¿ thanks, jaume. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
> If you don't need record-level locking, rollbacks, etc. then I would > recommend MySQL, simply because it's very fast. Hmm, if you need fast why use sql server? you could use databases in files. they're fast, simple etc. If you need to create apps based on SQL you will need transactions, and record-level locking 'll make them fast. And for that you need something advanced like postgresql. OTOH most simple things assume that you use mysql, so your users would prefer mysql. most php apps need apache+php3+mysql. regards, Eyck. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages into ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice about mySQL is that it's load can get rather high if you have a large database. (we have 5k records in a realestate database so there's a pile of fields too that we have broken into 50 different tables to optimize the searches). If you plan on running a dynamic website, we aware of the following issues. 1) You will need more horsepower that you likely think. (true in my experience with this solution) 2) Search engines will NOT index php pages or asp pages and the like nearly as well as static pages. This is a big deal if you are looking for traffic to this site. 3) If you decided to go this way, offload the mySQL to a box on it's own, you will see marked improvement. We moved ours to a 700 with 512 megs of ram and it's almost acceptable. (we get a few searches a minute, not a lot, but definately busy) My 2 and a half cents Scott Thompson Programming & Server Admin Internet Brokers Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.internetbrokers.ab.ca Office: (403) 232-1032 Fax: (403) 265-2843 -Original Message- From: Arno Vije [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 9:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MySQL vs. Postgres Hi, where setting up some servers for a small ISP, they want to have a SQL database, but i`m in doubt. Which one would you recommend, mysql or postgres? The SQL database will be used in combination with PHP3 (or 4) to generate dynamic websites. greets, ::: (o 0) +|||_o_|||-+ | Arno Vije| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | www.linuxinfo.nl | +--v---v---+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: reiserfs & databases.
[...] RC> The idea is that the database vendor knows their data storage RC> better than the OS can guess it, and that knowledge allows RC> them to implement better caching algorithms than the OS can RC> use. The fact that benchmark results show that raw partition RC> access is slower indicates that the databases aren't written RC> as well as they are supposed to be. I am not convinced that this conclusion is warranted, though I admit I have not seen those benchmarks. The DB vendor's raw disk driver might be doing things like synchronous writes for maintaining its own invariants, while a [non-journalling] file system will care about fs meta-data consistency at best. While it is possible that the general purpose file system with more man-hours behind it is better written, the benchmarks might be omitting crucial criteria like crash protection and such. Do you guys have references to benchmarking data? RC> ... One of RC> which was someone who did tests with IBM's HPFS386 file system RC> for server versions of OS/2. He tried using 2M of cache with RC> HPFS386 and 16M of physical cache in a caching hard drive RC> controller and using 18M of HPFS386 cache with no cache on the RC> controller. The results were surprisingly close on real-world RC> tests such as compiling large projects. It seemed that 2M of RC> cache was enough to cache directory entries and other RC> file-system meta-data and cache apart from that worked on a RC> LRU basis anyway. This I would buy, as you point out the controller and the FS code are doing the same thing (if they are giving the same write guarantees). BM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Apache vhosts dinamically alias
Hmm... This might work... In your virtualhost declaration in httpd.conf place the Alias definition such as "Alias /stats/ /var/stats/virtualhosta.com" For example: ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] DocumentRoot /var/WWW ServerName www.virtualhosta.com Alias /stats/ /var/stats/virtualhosta.com You can place any httpd.conf, srm.conf, access.conf etc. statement inside a virtualhost declaration. There might be a faster to go about this, such as if you had a lot of virtual hosts, but this should work. Brian Jones Network Specialist Northroute Networks Ltd. (807) 346-4266 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.northroute.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jaume Teixi Sent: August 30, 2000 2:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Debian User Subject: Apache vhosts dinamically alias Importance: High I have each virtual host under /var/www I want to enable a virtualhostA.com/stats URL that points to /var/stats/virtualhostA.com same for virtualhostB, etc I've tried Alias /%1/stats/var/stasts/%1 with no success any Ideas? thanks, jaume. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Apache vhosts dinamically alias
> For example: > > ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > DocumentRoot /var/WWW > ServerName www.virtualhosta.com > Alias /stats/ /var/stats/virtualhosta.com > I think he ment mass_vhost from mod_vhost_alias or sth. Maybe mod_rewrite could help you in this case? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
hi, Sorry, not that familiar with sql servers. postgres is using record-level locking, what does mysql do, is it locking the whole table ? what are rollbacks? what other advantages are there in using postgres instead of mysql ? i maintain a small hosting server, that runs mysql (beside apache, exim etc) but as the traffic is getting higher we think about setting up a dedicated database server. Our customers mainly use mysql, but we are planing to set up some complex web apps. So what do you propose? A solution would be to run postgres beside mysql on that server. and what do you propose for bigger sql apsp with permanent database usage. php , apache-module (perl or c), cgi ? what experience do you have with the performance ? kind regards, achim hendriks < > If you don't need record-level locking, rollbacks, etc. then I would > recommend MySQL, simply because it's very fast. Hmm, if you need fast why use sql server? you could use databases in files. they're fast, simple etc. If you need to create apps based on SQL you will need transactions, and record-level locking 'll make them fast. And for that you need something advanced like postgresql. OTOH most simple things assume that you use mysql, so your users would prefer mysql. most php apps need apache+php3+mysql. regards, Eyck. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
> postgres is using record-level locking, what does mysql do, is it > locking the whole table ? what are rollbacks? what other advantages are AFAIK mysql locks whole table, rollback is term used with transaction - thing is, you put some sql statements inside transaction, and one of them fail, you rollback all your changes so your database is in consistent state. This is very important thing especially in networked apps (and that's what you need sql server for, don't you?). I'm probably a little bit biassed against mysql, since in their docs they talk about transactions like their useless and that's why they haven't implement them ( and not because they don't know how ;). And according to my knowledge transactions are one of the fundaments of database programming. > there in using postgres instead of mysql ? It's only my personal opinion postgres is more secure due to easier administration and ability to define remote access permissions easily and precisely. > are planing to set up some complex web apps. So what do you propose? > A solution would be to run postgres beside mysql on that server. they are both sql server, with postgres being more advanced and mysql being faster. There are only little differences in their sql ( there is book on postgresql being printed and accessible in pdf format at www.postgresql.org, which highlights any additions to SQL/92 standard so you can easily write SQL/92 conformant apps ) so it should be fairly easy to port all apps to postgres. Of course it's easy to rewrite int(11) to SQL/92 sql type, but when you do that on 100 customers apps it could be a major pain in ass. Little note about speed - you gain much more speed by proper setup (indices on other disks that actuall data, proper transactions, smartly using subselects and things like that. ) that by using simplier sql server. But you already know that first thing to optimize is an algorithm not the compiler. > and what do you propose for bigger sql apsp with permanent database > usage. php , apache-module (perl or c), cgi ? what experience do you have > with the performance ? I've been doing some apps in php3 and asp with sql on oracle. also cgi in perl and c. CGI generaly is very slow thing, no metter if you use perl,c or asm. but that's known fact. If you want to be fast you use things like mod-perl or interpreters like php or asp. Based on my knowledge and experience the fastest solution are pure mod-perl apps. but they're hard to impelement. My favourite solution is Apache::Asp module, with which you get transparent permanent database connections packaged with ease of development and top-notch performance. Second best solution would be php4 compiled with zend. You probably already know that php4/zend is faster than asp. php3 is slower. Probably, because differences ain't that big, maybe I've seen bad benchmarks. For me it's easier to deploy perl-based solution then php-one, but php-programmers are easy to buy and they're cheap. there ain't that much perl hackers outhere, although perl is very easy to learn. Although I have quite a lot of arguments to use perl and asp to build web apps, argument about cheap programmers is very important and you can't overlook it. Maybe situation is different where you live. There is also another fast and advanced solution which is aolserver. It's multithreaded (thing you get with apache 2.0 if you're brave, but aolserver is stable, been multithreaded for like years..), the only issue is programmers - If you can easily get people to programm in scheme or lisp ( i think that's aolserver's scripting language.. maybe I've mistaken it with sth more exotic ). And here you've got the same issue as with perl - aolserver is fast, scheme is quite easy to learn ( it took me two days to learn it enough to pass some exams, and I must say that it wasn't luck, I actually learned it ) but you can't find scheme programmers out on the street. But if you can, check out aolserver. There are also things like Oracle Application Server, which is extremely slow, probably due to overusage of Corba technology. To sum things up - php4+apache+postgres would be the cheapest and most promising solution (php is evolving quickly, it is already quite nice tool, although you get the feeling of using something young and not very mature) - asp+apache+postgres - you get very fast development, ability to tune your instalation as much as you want, all the nice stuff like sessions, transparent persistent database connections ( you write normal code, but Apache::ASP keeps cache of connections and gives you already connected handle without you knowing anything about it happening ). You get all numerous perl modules. And it's real programming language. But first you must find programmers who can write the code or are willing to learn. and perl is very RAM-hungry. - php3+apache+mysql - with that setup you're set up. it's most commo
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
On Wed, 30.08.00 18:02 +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote: > Hmm, if you need fast why use sql server? you could use databases > in files. they're fast, simple etc. Which file based database system is faster than mysql? I tried Berkeley db3 (although with transaction code) and it was horrible slow! bye, -chrstian- -- You know you're a nerd when your os uptime is longer than you've ever had a girlfriend. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
My workplace used php3 + mysql, then php3 + oracle, now looking at a combination of php3 + local mysql + master oracle db (the local mysql db's would act as caches for fast answers to most page queries). This is for scalability and availability reasons. php most commonly used with mysql, told by php dudes it's better supported, and php4 + mysql further the integration, projects cooperating. mysql are doing work on replicating the db which would be a nice thing to have for scalability. > We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with > the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages into > ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The > performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice about Rather surprised by that, wonder what the hit rate was. On the web server I run which has been pretty busy at times (1GB served less than a week, daily access logs of 60-70MB), the php and apache usage was virtually undectable, p3 650 256MB. Basically DB access and network download times, swamped out anything that the PHP interpreter does. > mySQL is that it's load can get rather high if you have a large database. > (we have 5k records in a realestate database so there's a pile of fields too > that we have broken into 50 different tables to optimize the searches). > > If you plan on running a dynamic website, we aware of the following issues. > 1) You will need more horsepower that you likely think. (true in my > experience with this solution) > 2) Search engines will NOT index php pages or asp pages and the like nearly > as well as static pages. This is a big deal if you are looking for traffic > to this site. > 3) If you decided to go this way, offload the mySQL to a box on it's own, > you will see marked improvement. We moved ours to a 700 with 512 megs of ram > and it's almost acceptable. (we get a few searches a minute, not a lot, but > definately busy) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MySQL vs. Postgres
Some stats for you. Keep in mind that these are only for the webserver. Hits Bytes Visits PViews Month 8,891,404 58,798,965,869 211,007 1,528,073 Jun 2000 10,853,047 57,775,413,897 224,862 1,375,197 Jul 2000 9,121,259 53,851,857,460 210,680 1,421,053 Aug 2000 Granted we have other clients, but I would guess that 60-80% of the consumers are 'real estate interested'. > We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with > the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages into > ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The > performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice about Rather surprised by that, wonder what the hit rate was. On the web server I run which has been pretty busy at times (1GB served less than a week, daily access logs of 60-70MB), the php and apache usage was virtually undectable, p3 650 256MB. Basically DB access and network download times, swamped out anything that the PHP interpreter does. > mySQL is that it's load can get rather high if you have a large database. > (we have 5k records in a realestate database so there's a pile of fields too > that we have broken into 50 different tables to optimize the searches). > > If you plan on running a dynamic website, we aware of the following issues. > 1) You will need more horsepower that you likely think. (true in my > experience with this solution) > 2) Search engines will NOT index php pages or asp pages and the like nearly > as well as static pages. This is a big deal if you are looking for traffic > to this site. > 3) If you decided to go this way, offload the mySQL to a box on it's own, > you will see marked improvement. We moved ours to a 700 with 512 megs of ram > and it's almost acceptable. (we get a few searches a minute, not a lot, but > definately busy) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: routing
Alright I've run into another problem or maybe I'm just dumb. 208.3.69.1 is the main router connected to the internet. 208.3.69.2 (eth0) is the device connected via ethernet to the main router on the linux router/bridge. 208.3.69.4 (eth1) goes to the client (208.3.69.3). The main router is a cisco and its routes look like: ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial0/1 ip route 208.3.69.0 255.255.255.0 Ethernet0/0 ip route 208.3.69.3 255.255.255.255 208.3.69.2 The linux router/bridge has routes of: 208.3.69.3 * 255.255.255.255 UH0 00 eth1 208.3.69.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 eth0 default 208.3.69.1 0.0.0.0 UG1 00 eth0 The client has a gw of 208.3.69.4. When I try to ping the main router from the client it doesn't work. tcpdump on eth1 shows: 06:33:35.687012 arp who-has 208.3.69.1 tell 208.3.69.3 (repeated) Nothing shows up on eth0. When I try to ping 208.3.69.3 from the main router (208.3.69.1) tcpdump on eth0 shows: 06:48:45.166405 208.3.69.1 > 208.3.69.3: icmp: echo request (repeated) On eth1: 6:49:50.926361 208.3.69.1 > 208.3.69.3: icmp: echo request 06:49:50.929978 arp who-has 208.3.69.1 tell 208.3.69.3 06:49:52.928131 208.3.69.1 > 208.3.69.3: icmp: echo request 06:49:52.931469 arp who-has 208.3.69.1 tell 208.3.69.3 Is it something wrong with my routes? Or do I just suck? Thanks. -- Kevin - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: routing
You are setting 255.255.255.0 netmasks so the machines are expecting to find .1 .2 .3 machines on the local ethernet interfaces. I don't know why you are doing it like that, but what would fix your problem is getting the Linux router machine to do a proxy-arp. You can turn this on by echo'ing the apporiate incantation to proc. Documentation/proc.txt in your linux source directory should give you the details. cheers, BM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
> > > postgres is using record-level locking, what does mysql do, is it > > locking the whole table ? what are rollbacks? what other advantages are > AFAIK mysql locks whole table, > rollback is term used with transaction - thing is, you put some sql > statements inside transaction, and one of them fail, you rollback all your > changes so your database is in consistent state. > This is very important thing especially in networked apps (and that's what > you need sql server for, don't you?). > I'm probably a little bit biassed against mysql, since in their docs they > talk about transactions like their useless and that's why they haven't > implement them ( and not because they don't know how ;). > And according to my knowledge transactions are one of the fundaments > of database programming. > I disagree with Eyck on this. I am a database programmer, have been since dBase II back in the early '80s. It all depends upon the application. Transactions are very, very useful under some circumstances, but if you can do without them, you can speed your database engine up a lot. Same thing with Foreign Keys, which MySQL does not support. If your application is going to be a large database with multiple tables that will need to be updated simultaneously, then Eyck is 100% correct, you need a database that supports transactions. However, most of the web based stuff I write does not require this. I am generally updating only one table at a time. In this case, I go MySQL to decrease my resource requirements. > > > there in using postgres instead of mysql ? > It's only my personal opinion postgres is more secure due to easier > administration and ability to define remote access permissions > easily and precisely. MySQL has a weird way of setting permissions, but once you figure it out your permissions are granular down to the user/table/action, which is what I get out of the "Big O" also. Point is (and I don't want to turn this into a religious argument), choose one. If you choose MySQL and find that it doesn't do what you want, change a few lines in your scripts (or, maybe an access module used by all your scripts) and turn on postgres. If you choose postgres and find it is too slow, and have optimized your queries and tables, do the same thing and go to MySQL. Your scripts should remain essentially the same, especially if you keep all db access scripts in one location. <---snip> Rod -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another question
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 11:35:10PM -0600, Nathan wrote: > Check the Readme's with the Kernel source - there is actualy a device you > have to mount in your fstab file (you know, for bootup;) that enables > shared memory. It uses a "imaginary" mount point like /proc does. OK, I found it. It actually uses a *real* mount point. From the docs: none/dev/shmshm defaults0 0 Thanks, Tim -- >< >> Tim Sailer (at home) >< Coastal Internet, Inc. << >> Network and Systems Operations >< PO Box 671 << >> http://www.buoy.com >< Ridge, NY 11961 << >> [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] >< (631) 476-3031 << >< -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache mod_rewrite
I need to do the following in order to access stats for each based
virtual host
when typing url www.virtualhost1.com/stats or
www.virtualhost99.com/stats
server page located under /var/reports/virtualhost1 or
/var/reports/virtualhost99
I've tryed on my httpd.conf:
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST}^www\.[^.]+$
RewriteRule ^(.+) %{HTTP_HOST}$1 [C]
RewriteRule ^www\.([^.]+)(.*)/stats/var/reports/$1
Apache produces a 404
any points to fix this ?
Bests,
jaume.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
