Hi,
AFAIK, even if there was a gig of ram in there, it would not allocate any
(or maybe just a little) to free memory, and would throw any free memory
into buffers anyway.
So 68M of buffers tells me it has ample free memory, it or wouldn't
allocate so much there anyway, right?
Sincerely,
Jason
Hi,
Too bad this is a production system or I would try it. I've never tried
reiserFS (neither has anyone else here) so we might test it along with a
2.4 kernel later. I hear 2.4 has intergrated reiserFS support?
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Alson van der Meulen" <[EMAIL
Hi,
These 15G drives are new, or they wouldn't be ata100 ;-)
Only reason we don't get 45 or 50G drives all the time is that not all
customers need that amount of space. They pay for what they get.
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rich
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 04:51:03PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Too bad this is a production system or I would try it. I've never tried
> reiserFS (neither has anyone else here) so we might test it along with a
> 2.4 kernel later. I hear 2.4 has intergrated reiserFS support?
Yup, it runs qui
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 04:49:21PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> AFAIK, even if there was a gig of ram in there, it would not allocate any
> (or maybe just a little) to free memory, and would throw any free memory
> into buffers anyway.
>
> So 68M of buffers tells me it has ample free memory
On Saturday 09 June 2001 20:04, Jason Lim wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would handle this.
>
> Right now, the swap is untouched. If the server needed more ram,
> wouldn't it be swapping something... anything? I mean, it currently has
> 0kb in swap, and still has free memory.
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
> Rik, as a general rule if a machine has 0 swap in use then can it be
> assumed that the gain from adding more RAM will be minimal or
> non-existant? Or is my previous assumption correct in that it could
> still be able to productively use more RAM for
I am wondering what is the best way to get simular results to suexec
with php?
I've heard of people running seperate instances of apache for each
client. Is that likely to be a messy solution? how much overhead would
each instance be?
The other solution is to use the CGI version of php and use
Hi,
More buffers makes sense... but i wonder what KIND of buffers those are.
Only if they are disk buffers would the performance be increased.
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Marcin Owsiany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 5:37 PM
Sub
I can't run slurpd
# slurpd -d 65535
[...]
Config: ** configuration file successfully read and parsed
new work in /var/lib/slurp/repo.replog
copy replog "/var/lib/slurp/repo.replog" to
"/var/lib/slurp/replica/slurpd.replog"
Error: copy_replog (12986): Directory is not writable
Fatal error while
Hi,
I in no way pretend to know a lot about the kernel and the specific ways
it handles free memory and caches, but i just look at it from a "logical"
point of view.
Hopefully I'm not too far off course in the assumptions i make! Hope Rik
can clarify this not just for me but for everyone thats b
Probably not. If you're not using the CGI version of PHP, then you
have to use the module version, and thus PHP will be joined at the
hip with the Apache daemons and you're stuck w/ the user/group that
Apache is running under.
As you mentioned, the CGI version of PHP does not have this proble
Hi,
Yeah.. they still make 15Gb drives. I think they still make 10Gbs but I'm
not sure.
Concerning the drives, since most of these are dedicated servers, they
main way we can differenciate (sp.? plz correct me if wrong) is to provide
different amounts of ram, cpu mhz, disk space, bandwidth, etc.
Hi,
This is also something that I've been looking into too, with no success
yet.
If you find something, let me know and I'll do the same! :-)
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Lunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:21 PM
Subje
Hi,
Something VERY interested has occurred.
I kept playing around with the /var/qmail/queue directory, to see how I
could optimize it.
I also saw in some qmail-* manpage that mess & pid directories, and todo &
intd directories have to be on the same drive (or was that partition?
nevermind)
So
>From all the discussions here, ot looks like that the only way to use php
with suexec is to use it as parser for cgi programs. The webserver himself
cannot change UID, because it's running under some normal user ( who will
be that crazy to run it as root? ).
The only way I see, is some mechanism
Thought I'd mention one more thing that would be pretty important to know.
qmail is now sending up to 400-450 concurrent outgoing emails (not all the
time obviously, but easily goes up to that). Previously the maximum it
would go to would be around 50... max 100, especially when it had 20K odd
me
Hi,
AFAIK, even if there was a gig of ram in there, it would not allocate any
(or maybe just a little) to free memory, and would throw any free memory
into buffers anyway.
So 68M of buffers tells me it has ample free memory, it or wouldn't
allocate so much there anyway, right?
Sincerely,
Jason
Hi,
Too bad this is a production system or I would try it. I've never tried
reiserFS (neither has anyone else here) so we might test it along with a
2.4 kernel later. I hear 2.4 has intergrated reiserFS support?
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Alson van der Meulen" <[EMAIL P
Hi,
These 15G drives are new, or they wouldn't be ata100 ;-)
Only reason we don't get 45 or 50G drives all the time is that not all
customers need that amount of space. They pay for what they get.
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rich
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 04:51:03PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Too bad this is a production system or I would try it. I've never tried
> reiserFS (neither has anyone else here) so we might test it along with a
> 2.4 kernel later. I hear 2.4 has intergrated reiserFS support?
Yup, it runs quit
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 04:49:21PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> AFAIK, even if there was a gig of ram in there, it would not allocate any
> (or maybe just a little) to free memory, and would throw any free memory
> into buffers anyway.
>
> So 68M of buffers tells me it has ample free memory,
On Saturday 09 June 2001 20:04, Jason Lim wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would handle this.
>
> Right now, the swap is untouched. If the server needed more ram,
> wouldn't it be swapping something... anything? I mean, it currently has
> 0kb in swap, and still has free memory.
T
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
> Rik, as a general rule if a machine has 0 swap in use then can it be
> assumed that the gain from adding more RAM will be minimal or
> non-existant? Or is my previous assumption correct in that it could
> still be able to productively use more RAM for c
I am wondering what is the best way to get simular results to suexec
with php?
I've heard of people running seperate instances of apache for each
client. Is that likely to be a messy solution? how much overhead would
each instance be?
The other solution is to use the CGI version of php and use
Hi,
More buffers makes sense... but i wonder what KIND of buffers those are.
Only if they are disk buffers would the performance be increased.
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Marcin Owsiany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Finding th
I can't run slurpd
# slurpd -d 65535
[...]
Config: ** configuration file successfully read and parsed
new work in /var/lib/slurp/repo.replog
copy replog "/var/lib/slurp/repo.replog" to
"/var/lib/slurp/replica/slurpd.replog"
Error: copy_replog (12986): Directory is not writable
Fatal error while c
Hi,
I in no way pretend to know a lot about the kernel and the specific ways
it handles free memory and caches, but i just look at it from a "logical"
point of view.
Hopefully I'm not too far off course in the assumptions i make! Hope Rik
can clarify this not just for me but for everyone thats be
Probably not. If you're not using the CGI version of PHP, then you
have to use the module version, and thus PHP will be joined at the
hip with the Apache daemons and you're stuck w/ the user/group that
Apache is running under.
As you mentioned, the CGI version of PHP does not have this problem
Hi,
Yeah.. they still make 15Gb drives. I think they still make 10Gbs but I'm
not sure.
Concerning the drives, since most of these are dedicated servers, they
main way we can differenciate (sp.? plz correct me if wrong) is to provide
different amounts of ram, cpu mhz, disk space, bandwidth, etc.
Hi,
This is also something that I've been looking into too, with no success
yet.
If you find something, let me know and I'll do the same! :-)
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Lunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:21 PM
Subject: user privileges
Hi,
Something VERY interested has occurred.
I kept playing around with the /var/qmail/queue directory, to see how I
could optimize it.
I also saw in some qmail-* manpage that mess & pid directories, and todo &
intd directories have to be on the same drive (or was that partition?
nevermind)
So s
>From all the discussions here, ot looks like that the only way to use php
with suexec is to use it as parser for cgi programs. The webserver himself
cannot change UID, because it's running under some normal user ( who will
be that crazy to run it as root? ).
The only way I see, is some mechanism
Thought I'd mention one more thing that would be pretty important to know.
qmail is now sending up to 400-450 concurrent outgoing emails (not all the
time obviously, but easily goes up to that). Previously the maximum it
would go to would be around 50... max 100, especially when it had 20K odd
mes
34 matches
Mail list logo
