On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 11:04:39AM +0000, Niall O Broin wrote:
> This comes up every year, as we have a customer site which gets very
> heavy load for a couple of weeks a year. The site uses PHP but also a
> lot of images and some flash and it is definitely rather wasteful to
> have a big apache process simply handing out an image.
Well don't use a big apache image then :) Apache is modular for a
reason, with only the modules you need enabled it can very very trim
indeed.
> So, once again I'm looking at possibly also running a small lightweight
> webserver which would be used to serve any static files. X15 was one
> option in the past but Chromium (its parent) is defunct. khttpd is now
> gone from the kernel, and the tux web server also seems to be defunct.
Ever since sendfile() came about, they don't really make much sense :)
> Or perhaps I should just migrate the thing to apache 2 which gives more
> bang for my CPU buck anyway? Is PHP support in Apache 2 now as solid as
> it is in apache? (for values of solid which apply to php anyway)
We use Apache 2 in production on all of our webservers. Including our
webhosts for both ours and client websites, many using PHP intensively
- no problems at all :)
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp at stdlib.net
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
