On 24 Aug 2006, at 00:11, Jonathan wrote:

> On Aug 23, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Jonathan Tweed wrote:
>> Where did 163MB come from?!

> 163 is about the resident memory size of the parent ( 60564 ) , and
> the child ( 101764 ).
> its also possible that its 60mb child res, 100mb parent res, and
> 3mb child res on the process you didn't request yet-- if you hit it
> again until you hit the other process ( log $$ to STDERR and tail
> it until you see 2 seperate processes ) can you bump up to 220 ?

No, the second process jumps to same size as the first but the first
process doesn't get any bigger.

>> I looked at lighttpd a few days ago but wasn't overly impressed.
>> There seems to be a lot of people with stability issues (as your
>> "restart it every day" comment proves) and in my completely
>> unscientific tests images seemed to served visibly faster by a fat
>> Apache than by lighty which greatly surprised me.

> again though, the benefit isn't in speed so much as it in resource
> allocation. a single 4mb server dispatching to modperl or vanilla
> apache (possibly serving static), vs a pool of apache children
> 4-10mb each.

I've looked at lighttpd again and I think I'm going to go with it. I
haven't even added in eaccelerator yet and it already seems plenty
fast for my needs. The plan is to put it in front of Apache and use
it for static files and PHP, proxying through to Apache for the
mod_perl sites.