Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 03:04:16 -0700 (MST) From: Ade Barkah <mbarkah@hemi.com> To: p.richards@elsevier.co.uk (Paul Richards) Cc: jfieber@indiana.edu, www@freebsd.org Subject: Re: moving cvs Message-ID: <199612181004.DAA03017@hemi.com> In-Reply-To: <5720cp2e02.fsf@tees.elsevier.co.uk> from Paul Richards at "Dec 17, 96 06:59:41 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Richards wrote: > > If all we're talking about doing is moving the static html pages off > freefall onto spatter then the sensible solution is a proxy on > spatter. What sort of load do we think just moving the static pages > will save? Hi Paul, Perusing the available logs (covers October 1 through November 17), a rough usage estimate is as follows: Number of CGI requests : 378338 Total number of GET lines : 3314288 Ratio: 11.4% Of course, it takes a lot more cycles to process CGI requests than simple GET requests. Here's a rough breakdown of the most popular CGI scripts called: search : 178881 cvsweb : 136798 mirror : 41566 query-pr : 17523 query-pr-summary : 2789 --------------------------------- total : 377557 (99.7%) Of the search.cgi requests, 10% were WWW searches (source=www), while the rest were for the mail-archives. So, I think it's reasonable to say that just moving the static hits to spatter is a good start, then we can work to move search.cgi and mirror.cgi over, then ponder about the rest. What do you think ? Looks like spatter is already mirroring free- fall. -Ade ------------------------------------------------------------------- Inet: mbarkah@hemi.com - HEMISPHERE ONLINE - <http://www.hemi.com/>; -------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612181004.DAA03017>