Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:53:22 +0000 (GMT) From: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> To: Kevin Day <toasty@home.dragondata.com> Cc: "Raymond L. Gilbert" <sfra47@source.isd.state.in.us>, joe@via.net, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Heavily loaded SMP server Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971113133521.12707D-100000@dylan.visint.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199711130500.XAA17161@home.dragondata.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Kevin Day wrote: > > Thus it was recorded by the prophets, Joe McGuckin said: > > >I`d like to talk to someone who is using their SMP machine for > > >heavy duty WWW serving, etc. > > > > Yeah so would I! Heavy duty WWW serving seems to imply putting SMP in > > a *production* environment. I've been running the SMP kernel for > > about a month now with few problems (none related to SMP code > > specifically), and I'd like to use it as a heavy-duty WWW server but > > I'm not sure that running -current on a production system is wise. > > Has anyone out there settled on a good, recent SNAP that could > > be used for heavy WWW traffic? I'm not too sure about WWW, our main web server here is still running 3.0-970618-SNAP, seems okay, it's a dual P133, and the load on it is miserably small at the moment (5k hits a day). So this machine is fine, doesn't crash/go wrong, well, it doesn't really do anything! However, I'm running 3.0-current as of last sunday on an identical machine which is being used as an intranet webserver, fileserver (apple & pc), shell accounts etc.. general purpose workhorse.. This machine does have some problems every now and again, and usually with high disk activity or heavy load to netatalk/appletalk. Before I upgraded from 3.0-970618-SNAP to current (on sunday) it was crashing about twice a week. Just freezing up, or spontaneous reboots (and I never got to the console in time)... My guess is this was an appletalk problem, although that's as good as any guess. This machine gets only about 1k hits a day, to the internal only website, but they are all fairly intensive cgi's and it handles this okay. YMMV, but don't fool yourself into thinking it's okay too soon.. I'd keep everything ready on whatever you do the transfer from so that you can just switch back by bringing the interface back up on the other machine. Could get nasty otherwise =) > 1) Lots of programs are still expecting *.so.2.1 libraries, when all it has > are the 3.0's. I haven't seen this problem yet.. (is this from not making world ?) Steve. -- Steve Roome - Vision Interactive Ltd. Tel:+44(0)117 9730597 Home:+44(0)976 241342 WWW: http://dylan.visint.co.uk/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.971113133521.12707D-100000>