Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 00:03:14 +0200 From: "Ronald Klop" <ronald-freebsd8@klop.yi.org> To: "Frans-Jan v. Steenbeek" <Frans-Jan@van-steenbeek.net>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver? Message-ID: <op.svrzjomd8527sy@outgoing.local> In-Reply-To: <58875.217.166.224.132.1124487738.squirrel@www.van-steenbeek.net> References: <58875.217.166.224.132.1124487738.squirrel@www.van-steenbeek.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:42:18 +0200, Frans-Jan v. Steenbeek <Frans-Jan@van-Steenbeek.net> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm a sysadmin and a web-programmer at a company in the Netherlands. In > the following month we will launch a webshop which will have a estimated > 1000 full hits in the first weeks (estimated through calculation of the > marketing-departement). I am writing the webshop, and have installed the > webserver. Because of issues with our housing, we can't put our HP > webserver to use, since it produces to much noise in our very small > building. Since we are moving in a few months, we decided to use a HP > laptop instead (reasonably fast CPU, 512 Megs) since we had a few to > spare. What do you mean by 1000 hits? Is it 1000 customers or 1000 http requests? 1000 hits a week is 1000 / ( 7 * 24 * 60 ) = 0 hits per minute or 5 in an hour. If your laptop crashes every 10 minutes there is a change no customer wil notice it. > The toy is currently set up with FreeBSD 6.0-BETA2, Apache 2.0, MySQL 5.0 > and PHP-5.0 with all the reasonable modules. Everything is compiled from > ports. No changes to the kernel yet, no world-rebuilding done. > > I trust the laptop enough to get the job done, but I wonder if 6.0-BETA2 > will be up for the task. I heard rumours that it should be more stable > and > faster then 5.4-RELEASE (which I use mostly nowadays), but it IS beta > after all. On the other hand, I get the impression that 6.0 is the > release > of choice for deploying anything on a laptop (considering that darned > Pentium-M). Another thing, I do not fully trust the combination of Apache > 2.0, MySQL 5.0 and PHP 5.0, since they are all quite new in the > frontlines. > This would be a decent testcase for 6.0, but the thing is... I can't > afford any crashes (this webshop is considered to settle the future for > our company) and we are talking about a laptop here. Funny to settle the future for a company this way. I hope your customers aren't reading this. ;-) > I will post all problems not yet reported to the list, but if anyone of > you would like to share his or her opinion on this matter, please let me > know. Will 4.11-RELEASE perhaps be a better choice? You are asking a silly question. It comes down to "I'm running BETA software. Can I expect this to be STABLE?". If it is stable, it wil say stable in the version number. Except for Apache all your software is beta, but from sourcecode which is quite mature for some time. You can only answer this question by inviting 1000 (virtual) friends and ask them to buy something in your webshop. Ronald. -- Ronald Klop Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.svrzjomd8527sy>