Hi,

Just wondering for what amount of Load the default configuration of
apache2-mpm-prefork in Sarge is tuned?

Will it server well about 1,000 users simultaneously?


thankyou so much

kind Regards

Siju


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 03:03:11PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just wondering for what amount of Load the default configuration of
> apache2-mpm-prefork in Sarge is tuned?
>
> Will it server well about 1,000 users simultaneously?
>
It depends. There are so many variables that it is not even funny. You
probably want to investigate thouroughly what it is that you are trying
to do, figure out what packages you will be using and then look at the
content that you will be serving. Only then will you even begin to have
enough information to make something resembling a guess that is within
an order of magnitude.

To put it in perspective, you have something equivalent to "can a
roadway handle 100 vehicles?" Without providing any other information
to , it is impossible to answer.

Regards,

-Roberto

--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGCR+41snWssAFC08RAuUUAKCO3E094v45LXwKyxp3Ze +oub6G9ACffObG
qa3QXKveCj/MYGo0eTnSdL4=
=3coQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Siju George escribió:
> Hi,
>
> Just wondering for what amount of Load the default configuration of
> apache2-mpm-prefork in Sarge is tuned?
>
> Will it server well about 1,000 users simultaneously?
>

Is not that much problem of the server or server version is more:

If your hardware can resist it, then yes, apache does ;-)

Jose Luis,
- --

ghostbar @ linux/debian 'sid' x86 - #382503
WeBlog: http://ghostbar.ath.cx/ - http://talug.org.ve
http://debian.org.ve - irc.debian.org #debian-ve
San Cristóbal, Venezuela.
Fingerprint = 3E7D 4267 AFD5 2407 2A37 20AC 38A0 AD5B CACA B118
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGCdm/OKCtW8rKsRgRAjPVAJ0alGYeDgoxXXu3/6VGLv/kctz+dgCgvhS1
1CpS7iva420NwmZv9dGvPvQ=
=Cbin
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Thankyou so much jose and Roberto for your Responses :-)

On 3/27/07, Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 03:03:11PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just wondering for what amount of Load the default configuration of
> > apache2-mpm-prefork in Sarge is tuned?
> >
> > Will it server well about 1,000 users simultaneously?
> >
> It depends. There are so many variables that it is not even funny. You
> probably want to investigate thouroughly what it is that you are trying
> to do, figure out what packages you will be using and then look at the
> content that you will be serving. Only then will you even begin to have
> enough information to make something resembling a guess that is within
> an order of magnitude.
>

Yup

This one is going to be e-learning website.
Where people (anyone) can come register for free and upload their
content ( turtorials media at most 50 MB per user )

And others can come and download the and use them for free.

No Idea how many users will be there exactly :-(

What i am concerned is about the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_effect

users are expected from

http://digg.com/
http://www.techcrunch.com/
http://www.solutionwatch.com/

i also went through

http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/07...4x-in-10-days/

http://blogs.tech-recipes.com/davak/...s-should-know/

So i would like to prepare for that.

The server i have is

================================================== ====================
1x Dual-Core Opteron 2210 (1.8GHz) on a Dual CPU Motherboard

2x 2GB RAM/PC3200 (4GB Total)

2x Onboard GbE LANs

CD-ROM

1U 2 Hot-Swap Bays Chassis & Mounting Brackets

x Dual Channel SATA RAID Adapter

2x 500GB 7200 RPM SATA RE Hot-Swap HDD's
================================================== =======================

So I hope I should be Installing ( right? )

kernel-image-2.6.8-12-amd64-k8-smp - Linux kernel image for version
2.6.8 on AMD64 SMP systems

to harness the full power of the CPU as currently it shows only

================================================== ================
Linux websrv-1 2.6.8-11-amd64-generic #1 Thu Jan 11 21:39:50 PST 2007
x86_64 GNU/Linux
# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 15
model : 65
model name : Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2210
stepping : 2
cpu MHz : 1795.549
cache size : 1024 KB
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 1
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext lm
3dnowext 3dnow pni cmpxchg16b
bogomips : 3547.13
TLB size : 1088 4K pages
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts fid vid ttp [4] [5]

# mpstat -P ALL
Linux 2.6.8-11-amd64-generic (tutorom-dbsrv-1) 03/28/2007

03:37:08 AM CPU %user %nice %system %iowait %irq %soft
%idle intr/s
03:37:08 AM all 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00
99.91 1003.62
03:37:08 AM 0 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00
99.91 1003.62
================================================== ========================

also it has

================================================== ========================

3ware Storage Controller device driver for Linux v1.26.00.039.
scsi0 : Found a 3ware Storage Controller at 0xcc00, IRQ: 16, P-chip: 1.3
scsi0 : 3ware Storage Controller
Vendor: 3ware Model: Logical Disk 0 Rev: 1.2
================================================== ========================

Just wondering mdadm can monitor this hardware Raid Controller? is it supported?

I hope to Install LVM and have seperate partitions for
"/var/log" and "/var/www" so I can adjust them if there is any need in future.

What do you suggest use up the whole 500 GB disks or leave some free
Space for later use?

Also

Should I use.

"apache2-mpm-worker" or "apache2-mpm-prefork"?

because

http://www.debian.co.uk/apacheinstall.htm

says "apache-mpm-worker" could be a risk.

Also this will be on PHP5 and will be contacting a MySQL 5.0 Database
Server with the same Specs.

Hope these informations are enough :-)

Please let me know if you need more.

Thankyou so much once again :-)

Kind Regards

Siju

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 05:55:23PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
>
> The server i have is
>
> ================================================== ====================
> 1x Dual-Core Opteron 2210 (1.8GHz) on a Dual CPU Motherboard
>
> 2x 2GB RAM/PC3200 (4GB Total)
>
> 2x Onboard GbE LANs
>
> CD-ROM
>
> 1U 2 Hot-Swap Bays Chassis & Mounting Brackets
>
> x Dual Channel SATA RAID Adapter
>
> 2x 500GB 7200 RPM SATA RE Hot-Swap HDD's
> ================================================== =======================
>
The hardware specs look good. How much bandwidth will the server have
going to it? I mean is your ISP connection a dedicated T1, T3, or
something else?

> So I hope I should be Installing ( right? )
>
> kernel-image-2.6.8-12-amd64-k8-smp - Linux kernel image for version
> 2.6.8 on AMD64 SMP systems
>
> to harness the full power of the CPU as currently it shows only
>
You want to be using Etch.

>
> Just wondering mdadm can monitor this hardware Raid Controller? is it
> supported?
>
I think you need the monitoring tools from 3ware. However, I am not
certain. In any case, mdadm is for the Linux software RAID
implementations.

> I hope to Install LVM and have seperate partitions for
> "/var/log" and "/var/www" so I can adjust them if there is any need in
> future.
>
Put everything on LVM. That allows you to create separate partitions as
necessary.

> What do you suggest use up the whole 500 GB disks or leave some free
> Space for later use?
>
I would say, start with the partitions as small as you can. Use XFS and
grow the partitions as necessary.

> Should I use.
>
> "apache2-mpm-worker" or "apache2-mpm-prefork"?
>
> because
>
> http://www.debian.co.uk/apacheinstall.htm
>
> says "apache-mpm-worker" could be a risk.
>
> Also this will be on PHP5 and will be contacting a MySQL 5.0 Database
> Server with the same Specs.
>
With PHP, I believe that you *must* use prefork. This is because PHP is
not really thread-safe. Even if they have managed to clean up the PHP
core, most external libraries are not thread-safe.

If you have any choice in the matter, use Python or Perl instead of PHP
so that you can use apache's worker MPM, which by all accounts should
perform lots better.

At the risk of starting a flameware, please don't use MySQL. That is,
unless you are a super experienced expert. It is well known that
MySQL's performance drops very quickly as the number of connections
increases. This can be mitigated with clustering and performance tuning
(for example, slashdot uses a MySQL cluster and they have been
performance tuning it for like 8 years). However, since you have only
one server, you really want a database that will scale well in one
instance. For that, I can recommend PostgreSQL (unless you want to
spring for Oracle or DB2, but you are unlikely to get support for those
on Debian).

> Hope these informations are enough :-)
>
> Please let me know if you need more.
>
Regards,

-Roberto

--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGCmhY1snWssAFC08RAvW8AJ0YmotVtxipxPBBik0sNC o66qw+5wCfRvi+
FQDJyUqSqDMDX2HWilXu5rw=
=tS5C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thanks a million Roberto for the Quick Reply :-)

On 3/28/07, Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote:
> >
> The hardware specs look good. How much bandwidth will the server have
> going to it? I mean is your ISP connection a dedicated T1, T3, or
> something else?
>

T1 burstable they say. That is more bandwidth will be automatically
alloted if needed.

> > So I hope I should be Installing ( right? )
> >
> > kernel-image-2.6.8-12-amd64-k8-smp - Linux kernel image for version
> > 2.6.8 on AMD64 SMP systems
> >
> > to harness the full power of the CPU as currently it shows only
> >
> You want to be using Etch.
>

May I Know why Is ther any problem using Sarge?
isn't that more stable.

I never used Etch for Production Servers.

I already upgraded one Server to the Sarge SMP kernel.
Should I be using Etch Instead?

================================================== =======================
# uname -a
Linux websrv-1 2.6.8-12-amd64-k8-smp #1 SMP Thu Dec 7 18:44:52 UTC
2006 x86_64 GNU/Linux

# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 15
model : 65
model name : Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2210
stepping : 2
cpu MHz : 1795.568
cache size : 1024 KB
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 1
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext lm
3dnowext 3dnow pni cmpxc
hg16b
bogomips : 3547.13
TLB size : 1088 4K pages
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts fid vid ttp [4] [5]

processor : 1
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 15
model : 65
model name : Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2210
stepping : 2
cpu MHz : 1795.568
cache size : 1024 KB
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 1
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext lm
3dnowext 3dnow pni cmpxc
hg16b
bogomips : 3588.09
TLB size : 1088 4K pages
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts fid vid ttp [4] [5]

# mpstat -P ALL
Linux 2.6.8-12-amd64-k8-smp (tutorom-dbsrv-1) 03/28/2007

04:53:44 AM CPU %user %nice %system %iowait %irq %soft
%idle intr/s
04:53:44 AM all 0.78 0.00 1.96 3.31 0.00 0.02
93.93 1039.80
04:53:44 AM 0 0.90 0.00 3.40 5.88 0.01 0.03
89.77 1039.77
04:53:44 AM 1 0.65 0.00 0.52 0.75 0.00 0.00
97.99 0.00
top - 04:50:36 up 1 min, 1 user, load average: 0.23, 0.11, 0.04
Tasks: 53 total, 2 running, 51 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu0 : 0.0% us, 0.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 100.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
Cpu1 : 0.0% us, 0.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 100.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
Mem: 4102044k total, 111748k used, 3990296k free, 10328k buffers
Swap: 2931852k total, 0k used, 2931852k free, 38700k cached
================================================== ======================

Does that look good enough?

I am a bit apprehensive about using Etch in Production :-(
Also the freequent kernel upgrades to Etch would mean freequent reboots right?


> >
> > Just wondering mdadm can monitor this hardware Raid Controller? is it
> > supported?
> >
> I think you need the monitoring tools from 3ware. However, I am not
> certain. In any case, mdadm is for the Linux software RAID
> implementations.
>

yes yes forgot that :-)


> > I hope to Install LVM and have seperate partitions for
> > "/var/log" and "/var/www" so I can adjust them if there is any need in
> > future.
> >
> Put everything on LVM. That allows you to create separate partitions as
> necessary.
>

http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/benefitsoflvmsmall.html

says
===========================================
"root on LV should be used by advanced users only


root on LVM requires an initrd image that activates the root LV. If a
kernel is upgraded without building the necessary initrd image, that
kernel will be unbootable. Newer distributions support lvm in their
mkinitrd scripts as well as their packaged initrd images, so this
becomes less of an issue over time. "
================================================== =====================

Is it outdated info?

or shall I put

/boot on an Ext3

and put the rest in LVM on XFS

> > What do you suggest use up the whole 500 GB disks or leave some free
> > Space for later use?
> >
> I would say, start with the partitions as small as you can. Use XFS and
> grow the partitions as necessary.
>

Thankyou so much :-)
hope Linux Can boot From XFS and kernel upgrades will go without probs.
and also handle kernel upgrades will go smoothly.


>
> If you have any choice in the matter, use Python or Perl instead of PHP
> so that you can use apache's worker MPM, which by all accounts should
> perform lots better.
>

nope :-( the code is already in PHP.

> At the risk of starting a flameware, please don't use MySQL. That is,
> unless you are a super experienced expert. It is well known that
> MySQL's performance drops very quickly as the number of connections
> increases. This can be mitigated with clustering and performance tuning
> (for example, slashdot uses a MySQL cluster and they have been
> performance tuning it for like 8 years). However, since you have only
> one server, you really want a database that will scale well in one
> instance. For that, I can recommend PostgreSQL
>

Really?
I heard postgresql is slower than mysql. not true?
any way the code is written for php5, mysql5 so no choice :-(

Thanks a million :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Kind Regards

Siju

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 07:21:56PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> Thanks a million Roberto for the Quick Reply :-)
>
No problem.

> On 3/28/07, Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote:
> >>
> >The hardware specs look good. How much bandwidth will the server have
> >going to it? I mean is your ISP connection a dedicated T1, T3, or
> >something else?
> >
>
> T1 burstable they say. That is more bandwidth will be automatically
> alloted if needed.
>
OK. I am not sure if a connection that small can handle a slashdotting,
but I guess you will find out :-)

> >> So I hope I should be Installing ( right? )
> >>
> >> kernel-image-2.6.8-12-amd64-k8-smp - Linux kernel image for version
> >> 2.6.8 on AMD64 SMP systems
> >>
> >> to harness the full power of the CPU as currently it shows only
> >>
> >You want to be using Etch.
> >
>
> May I Know why Is ther any problem using Sarge?
> isn't that more stable.
>
Etch will be released any day now. You will save yourself much grief if
you just start off with Etch than starting with Sarge and trying to
upgrade to Etch. There have been some very major changes.

> I never used Etch for Production Servers.
>
> I already upgraded one Server to the Sarge SMP kernel.
> Should I be using Etch Instead?
>
I would recommend yes. Etch already has security support, which is
usually the biggest issue when choosing something for production. Other
than that, it is quite stable, including newer versions of Apache and
PHP, which should give you better performance.

>
> I am a bit apprehensive about using Etch in Production :-(
> Also the freequent kernel upgrades to Etch would mean freequent reboots
> right?
>
Umm, there should be no more kernel updates to Etch. The final kernel
was set some time ago and I believe that all the updates are done for
the time being, excepting possible future security fixes.

> >> I hope to Install LVM and have seperate partitions for
> >> "/var/log" and "/var/www" so I can adjust them if there is any need in
> >> future.
> >>
> >Put everything on LVM. That allows you to create separate partitions as
> >necessary.
> >
>
> http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/benefitsoflvmsmall.html
>
> says
> ===========================================
> "root on LV should be used by advanced users only
>
>
> root on LVM requires an initrd image that activates the root LV. If a
> kernel is upgraded without building the necessary initrd image, that
> kernel will be unbootable. Newer distributions support lvm in their
> mkinitrd scripts as well as their packaged initrd images, so this
> becomes less of an issue over time. "
> ================================================== =====================
>
> Is it outdated info?
>
> or shall I put
>
> /boot on an Ext3
>
> and put the rest in LVM on XFS
>
Actually, you are right. My response was too terse. Having / on LVM,
while it has become easier to manage, is not something that I am yet
comfortable with. If your install has some sort of major catastrophic
failure, having / on LVM is just another complication. In your case, I
would recommend /boot (ext2) and / (ext3 or xfs) be each their own
non-LVM partitions. Everything else should be on LVM. Also, I forgot
to mention that you should only use XFS if the system is on a good UPS.

> >> What do you suggest use up the whole 500 GB disks or leave some free
> >> Space for later use?
> >>
> >I would say, start with the partitions as small as you can. Use XFS and
> >grow the partitions as necessary.
> >
>
> Thankyou so much :-)
> hope Linux Can boot From XFS and kernel upgrades will go without probs.
> and also handle kernel upgrades will go smoothly.
>
Yes. XFS has been in the mainline kernel since about version 2.4.24 or
2.4.28 (I forget which), and grub has supported it for a long time now.

>
> >
> >If you have any choice in the matter, use Python or Perl instead of PHP
> >so that you can use apache's worker MPM, which by all accounts should
> >perform lots better.
> >
>
> nope :-( the code is already in PHP.
>
> >At the risk of starting a flameware, please don't use MySQL. That is,
> >unless you are a super experienced expert. It is well known that
> >MySQL's performance drops very quickly as the number of connections
> >increases. This can be mitigated with clustering and performance tuning
> >(for example, slashdot uses a MySQL cluster and they have been
> >performance tuning it for like 8 years). However, since you have only
> >one server, you really want a database that will scale well in one
> >instance. For that, I can recommend PostgreSQL
> >
>
> Really?
> I heard postgresql is slower than mysql. not true?

Right, that is not true. For a small number of users or connections,
MySQL is actually a bit faster, but this represents a very small number
of use cases. Also, much MySQL's speed comes from its poor (or
non-existent) handling of data integrity. You can, however, compensate
for the data integrity in your application code.

> any way the code is written for php5, mysql5 so no choice :-(
>
I'm not sure how your code is written. If a new connection is opened to
the MySQL database for each client connection, your database will likely
crawl once you get several hundred users accessing the site
simultaneously. If you are able to have some sort of connection pooling
set up, then that should tremendously, since the various sessions
will continually reuse the same small number of connections.

> Thanks a million :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>
No problem.

Regards,

-Roberto

--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGCnla1snWssAFC08RArX1AKCHanka+eHN7QZXYeAWmg 5Ar0XVGACfYyOk
X/oVLuEznEN9N91d/medth8=
=wwXI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 3/28/07, Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 07:21:56PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> >
> OK. I am not sure if a connection that small can handle a slashdotting,
> but I guess you will find out :-)
>

alright :-)


> > May I Know why Is ther any problem using Sarge?
> > isn't that more stable.
> >
> Etch will be released any day now. You will save yourself much grief if
> you just start off with Etch than starting with Sarge and trying to
> upgrade to Etch. There have been some very major changes.
>

Which means Security updates for Sarge will stop soon right?
And I will need to upgrade all the Sarge servers on the net soon :-)

> > I never used Etch for Production Servers.
> >
> > I already upgraded one Server to the Sarge SMP kernel.
> > Should I be using Etch Instead?
> >
> I would recommend yes. Etch already has security support, which is
> usually the biggest issue when choosing something for production. Other
> than that, it is quite stable, including newer versions of Apache and
> PHP, which should give you better performance.
>

Thankyou will go for Etch then.
I already use it for development purposes but this would be the first
time to put it in production :-)


> >
> Actually, you are right. My response was too terse. Having / on LVM,
> while it has become easier to manage, is not something that I am yet
> comfortable with. If your install has some sort of major catastrophic
> failure, having / on LVM is just another complication. In your case, I
> would recommend /boot (ext2) and / (ext3 or xfs) be each their own
> non-LVM partitions. Everything else should be on LVM. Also, I forgot
> to mention that you should only use XFS if the system is on a good UPS.
>

alright will go for ext2 and ext3 on parttions and put all on LVM
except / and /boot.
I did hear lot of Good reports about ext3 on LVM.
So that would be risk free.

again I usually put ext3 for /boot.

is there a Special reason to put ext2 for /boot?

Now Comes the major part :-)

What parameters should i tune from the Default "apache2-mpm-prefork"
on Etch to take care of the Digg effect?

Thankyou so much

kind regards

Siju

On Wednesday 28 March 2007 11:06, Siju George wrote:

> >
> > Etch will be released any day now. You will save yourself much grief if
> > you just start off with Etch than starting with Sarge and trying to
> > upgrade to Etch. There have been some very major changes.
>
> Which means Security updates for Sarge will stop soon right?
> And I will need to upgrade all the Sarge servers on the net soon :-)
>

From http://www.us.debian.org/security/faq#lifespan
"The security team tries to support a stable distribution for about one year
after the next stable distribution has been released, except when another
stable distribution is released within this year."

> alright will go for ext2 and ext3 on parttions and put all on LVM
> except / and /boot.
> I did hear lot of Good reports about ext3 on LVM.
> So that would be risk free.
>
> again I usually put ext3 for /boot.
>
> is there a Special reason to put ext2 for /boot?

There's no particular reason to have a journal for a partition as small
as /boot usually is. I hear that the journal itself can be ~30MB.

>
> Now Comes the major part :-)
>
> What parameters should i tune from the Default "apache2-mpm-prefork"
> on Etch to take care of the Digg effect?
>
> Thankyou so much
>
> kind regards
>
> Siju

Can't wait to see the content. :-)

Regards,

Anson Gardner

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 09:36:28PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
>
> Which means Security updates for Sarge will stop soon right?
> And I will need to upgrade all the Sarge servers on the net soon :-)
>
Security support for Sarge will continue for 1 year after the release of
Etch or until the release of Lenny (which ever comes first). For
example, I support some computers in a primary/secondary school
environment. Those won't be getting upgraded until over the summer. No
sense taking the chance of breaking anything while school is still in.
:-)

> is there a Special reason to put ext2 for /boot?
>
Because /boot is generally very small (< 100 MB) and rarely written to.
Additionally, the journal on ext3 takes at least 32 MB. To bo honest
I'm not too sure of the *exact* reason, it is just the recommendation
that I have always seen and hence I echo it since also Works for Me(TM).

> Now Comes the major part :-)
>
> What parameters should i tune from the Default "apache2-mpm-prefork"
> on Etch to take care of the Digg effect?
>
It took me a while to track it down again, but this article would be of
great interest to you:

http://www.geology.smu.edu/~dpa-www/attention_span/

I don't recall if it covers apache specifically, but you might want to
ask in the #apache channel for specifics if nobody else here has any
suggestions.

Regards,

-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGCt7v1snWssAFC08RAno6AJ4ld0lN6W+E+AM6esSRJz ovEdPH0gCgjmxE
q6dKUz8bPibHwFa5/0dIeCU=
=JPiM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 3/29/07, Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 09:36:28PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> >
> > Which means Security updates for Sarge will stop soon right?
> > And I will need to upgrade all the Sarge servers on the net soon :-)
> >
> Security support for Sarge will continue for 1 year after the release of
> Etch or until the release of Lenny (which ever comes first). For
> example, I support some computers in a primary/secondary school
> environment.
>

Thats Great :-)

>Those won't be getting upgraded until over the summer. No
> sense taking the chance of breaking anything while school is still in.
> :-)
>

Again comming back to using Etch there is one more thing to be careful right?

The apt source.list will contain the keyword "testing" for Etch now.
Once it is released as stable that should also be changed to stable in
all Etch Systems so as to get the right packages isn't it?

Also since you said there are major changes between Sarge and Etch.
Will a

apt-get dist-upgrade work on the machines without breaking things?

because all my Systems except a few sits on the other side of the Globe :-(


> It took me a while to track it down again, but this article would be of
> great interest to you:
>
> http://www.geology.smu.edu/~dpa-www/attention_span/
>
> I don't recall if it covers apache specifically, but you might want to
> ask in the #apache channel for specifics if nobody else here has any
> suggestions.
>

Thankyou So much Roberto.
You are such a nice person with a great ing mentality :-))))))))))))

Kind Regards

Siju

On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 11:01:02PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
>
> Again comming back to using Etch there is one more thing to be careful
> right?
>
> The apt source.list will contain the keyword "testing" for Etch now.
> Once it is released as stable that should also be changed to stable in
> all Etch Systems so as to get the right packages isn't it?
>
Actually, if you just put "etch" in your sources.list, there is nothing
to worry about. If you ahve anything that currently says "testing", but
you really want to stay on Etch once it is released, I would go ahead
switch those to say "etch" now.

> Also since you said there are major changes between Sarge and Etch.
> Will a
>
> apt-get dist-upgrade work on the machines without breaking things?
>
> because all my Systems except a few sits on the other side of the Globe :-(
>
There should not be any problems. However, I would carefully read the
release notes.

>
> Thankyou So much Roberto.
> You are such a nice person with a great ing mentality :-))))))))))))
>
Thank you for the kind words.

Regards,

-Roberto

--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGC/mW5SXWIKfIlGQRAneSAKCQyc0yO44c8q93ij0pz9vpA4BOAgCe PvCy
NRMUz7nZgAVw/XY7heyIjBc=
=ut2m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tuesday 27 March 2007 08:44, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 03:03:11PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just wondering for what amount of Load the default configuration of
> > apache2-mpm-prefork in Sarge is tuned?
> >
> > Will it server well about 1,000 users simultaneously?
>
> It depends. There are so many variables that it is not even funny.

so true.

> You
> probably want to investigate thouroughly what it is that you are trying
> to do, figure out what packages you will be using and then look at the
> content that you will be serving. Only then will you even begin to have
> enough information to make something resembling a guess that is within
> an order of magnitude.

even then, to answer a question like "how many simultanious users can the site
handle" is near impossible. you'd first need to define "simultanious". you
may begin to attempt to answer a slightly different question of "how many
visitors per hour" or some such. even then, the best guesstimate would be the
order of magnitude. simply because there are so many variables involved.

i do stress testing every year or so for a cluster of web servers. "httperf",
snmp, cactus, rrdb et al. are your friends. enable "response time" logging in
apache and keep an eye out for pages taking longer than 0 seconds. (afaik,
apache rounds down to the nearest second). enable slow query logging in
mysql. then use explain to find out what's causing each 'slow-query' to take
as long as it does. fill the database with data before doing your tests. the
database behaves differently with a lot of data vs. without (eg. mysql uses
table scans even when there are indexes when it figures it has to look at 75%
or the data in the table or some such). and if you do end up using a stress
generator (for the lack of a better term) like 'httperf', make sure you are
not measuring the performance of the machine generating the requests.

even the smallest delay you would barely notice when not under stress tendsto
magnify and contribute to heavy load on the system when it gets busy. so the
only way to find out is to really put the system under heavy load using
httperf or the like..

hope that s.

>
> To put it in perspective, you have something equivalent to "can a
> roadway handle 100 vehicles?" Without providing any other information
> to , it is impossible to answer.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Roberto

--

anoop aryal
aaryal@foresightint.com