FreeBSD Install config

[Paul Robinson]

On Dec 22, Paul Civati <paul at xciv.org> wrote:

> Performance can be helped by putting an "accelarator" or "reverse"
> proxy like Squid in front of your main httpd.  Not ideal for all
> situations, but can be useful.

I've used accelerators - I even have customers who have them. IMHO, they 
make matters worse typically. A well configured Dual-PIII-450 running 
4.x-STABLE with a tuned kernel, and a tuned Zeus config can perform rather 
quick on it's own - sticking a squid box in front will, generally, cause a 
slow-down.
 
> I'm sure it will use plenty of memory if you configure it correctly
> to spawn and pre-spawn enough handler processes.

Indeed, but it's not doing any local cacheing, so will not be using RAM as 
efficiently as it could be, and probably not as much.
 
> Read "they don't agree with my opinion" :) I'm sure they care a lot
> about performance and have gone to great lengths to ensure it's as
> fast as it can be, for the design of server it is (ie. forking vs.
> select/threading like thttpd/Zeus).

Point taken, but the goal of the Apache project is not to produce the 
fastest web server on the planet. I think it's fair to say that they don't 
care about cacheing, because that isn't their objective. My opinion as to 
whether this a good thing or a bad thing depends on what application I'm 
setting up - I spend a LOT of time trying to do relatively clever things 
with PHP, and on limited resources. As a result, I need cacheing, and I need 
ot squeeze performance out of what I have. If I'm handling a low-traffic 
site with a few hundred Kb of relatively static content, I don't really care 
either.
 
> Sure.. Apache might not be the best but I think your comments
> are a little harsh.  Apache can be configured to perform quite
> reasonably if the config and server have been appropriately
> tuned.  There is some documentation on the Apache site about
> how to optimise things.

Yup, and I've read it. Please don't think I'm criticising Apache - it's a 
good product and has been critical to the growth of the web in many ways.

My post was meant to reflect as to whether a web server was memory 
intensive, which Jeff seemed to think it wasn't. I just wanted to point out 
that Apache by default, isn't, but it could be. And anyway, high traffic 
sites on well configured servers WILL be memory intensive. I do also think 
that Apache could do with some tweaks mostly around performance, but only 
because I'd like something as powerful as Zeus, but without the £1,100 price 
tag and on-going maintenance contracts. :-)

Anyway, I'm at work today, so I want to finish up so I can go home and do 
some of this 'christmas' thing. Bah.

-- 
Paul Robinson