ircmaxell wrote:

The reason people still use Apache is because a lot of people buy into "That's just the way it is". If you want to run a high traffic site, you need a load balancer with umpteen servers...

Its pretty insane really. servers for apache, mysql/oracle all because apache is a utter pig.

The biggest mem hog I have atm is fcgi php-cgi. But running 10 php processes with max request at 400 still doesn't touch how much ram apache was using. Plus the added cpu usage for starting and killing the keep alive processes.

damb it. I'm trying to upload a image but its to big uggg...

Post edited by: Edge, at: 2008/03/18 16:13

Wow... I run between 20 and 30 processes, with max-request at around 100,000... (I've never seen a memory leak, so no reason to lower it). I also have a few of them running for my Ruby site (Yes, I have a ROR site running without mongrel, right via Lighttpd!)

I ment fcgi processes only. Total is 32 or so.

"PHP_FCGI_MAX_REQUESTS" => "400"

I have the mission to upgrade our platform, 1 server, to anything that lets us serve 1 millon visits a day, with peaks of 70 visits per second.

We host arround 100 diferent joomla based sites, but only 4 takes all the traffic. Right now the setup is: CentOS 4 + MySQL + Apache + Joomla.

For what i've read here, the first thing i'll do is to migrate to lighttpd and implement all the recomendations i think that apply for me, but as ( Ask Bjørn Hansen says, i want to be able to scale horizontal, so i was thinking on this setup:

1. One Server with nginx for caching and load balancing to
2. Two lighttpd serving Joomla, where the files are in a GFS file system, and a
3. Third server running MySQL and sharing via iSCSI the GFS file system to the 2 lighttpd servers.

In a short period i'll be adding redundancy for the nginx and MySQL server.
The HW would be:

- 4GB RAM nginx and web Servers, 8GB for MySQL,
- Quad Core Xeons at 1.8
- SCSI Disk 10k RPM

Do you have any recomendation to make?

Thanks.

Interesting discussion and stats...

One question... as you mention one difference is the lack of support for .htaccess...

How do you compensate for the security you can add using .htaccess?

Cheers,

Anders