Hi Mike, Well, the above LAMP configuration is way under this, built from dust-covered parts picked out from the trash, and it's hard to find 2 gig memory in the trash... :) About the main question, having 250 different logfiles is not a number that a usual webserver would cry about, even if it has to write 4-5 entries per sec into each of them. However, if you have all these entries in one file, it would take much extra time to split them, analyze them, update the scripts that does the job, etc... I'm too comfortable to do this, this would not be an option, even if I had 2000 vhosts. Apart from certain usage - like MP3 or video streaming on a 100 or 1000Mbps line -, the bottleneck is not the disk subsystem, but the CPU is, the average load of 2 also shows this. Using a RAID1 array also decreases stress on the disks, the 4.5% iowait avg is not an issue - and logging into different logfiles does not increase this at all. You should rather look for a faster CPU, because every other part of your box seems to be fine - at least from my point of view. Regards, Zoltan HERPAI On Wed, 31 May 2006, Mike Jackson wrote:
I'm running a couple Redhat servers with Apache 1.3.36 (which my company is sticking with for legacy reasons; I'm sure we'll move to 2.0 or 2.2 eventually, but everyone here other than me has only used 1.3). It's a typical LAMP setup. There's about 250 virtual hosts on a handful of IPs on the server I'm particularly concerned with. It averages about 13 busy Apache children, bursts up to 40 on a typical day, and MaxChildren is set to 60. The system load is typically over 2, and the bottleneck seems to be the disk (which is a two-disk SCSI RAID 1 array). iowait is around 4.5%. There's 2GB RAM, which is pretty heavily used (it averaged 75MB free over the last 24 hours). The swap partition is on a secondary IDE drive, and receives minimal use.We currently log all the virtual host activity to individual log files. Would it be more efficient to log to single logfile that's later split for each vhost? Or would that make the disk utilization worse? Or should I be looking to improve efficiency somewhere else? I already know the site PHP code is a bit inefficient in how it uses the disks, and I've talked to the programmer about cleaning that up a bit.--------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|