* David Banning ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > You might also consider switching to something like lighttpd, which
> > uses a single process that's generally about 1/3 the size of an
> > equivilent httpd process.
>
> I like these ideas. Thanks. What is the downside, if any, to using
> lighttpd? Is
> Moving things like mod_php and mod_perl stuff to FastCGI avoids each
> httpd having a copy of the interpreter and its various data structures
> each, and segments the memory of the interpreters outside httpd so it's
> easier to see what's using the memory; you'll have fewer copies running
> too,
* David Banning ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I seem to have a lot of memory being eaten by httpd (part output of top);
> Any ideas to have httpd timeout sooner to preserve memory?
MaxRequestsPerChild is there to cope with leaks, it won't help if Apache
is using a lot of memory to start with thou
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 02:40:01PM -0400, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> David Banning wrote:
> >I seem to have a lot of memory being eaten by httpd (part output of top);
> >
> >62310 nobody 18 0 26792K 21516K lockf0:04 0.00% 0.00%
> >httpd
> [ ... ]
> >I have changed the timeout in httpd.
David Banning wrote:
I seem to have a lot of memory being eaten by httpd (part output of top);
62310 nobody 18 0 26792K 21516K lockf0:04 0.00% 0.00% httpd
[ ... ]
I have changed the timeout in httpd.conf from 300 to 100 which does not
seem to help.
It wouldn't. Apache is no
