| From: | "John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, "Guido Barosio" <gbarosio(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Infrastructure monitoring |
| Date: | 2006-01-15 21:08:53 |
| Message-ID: | 34F8F335525CB14C95CF92BE2194858E012861@pdc.geeknet.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com]
> O.k. hardware requirements are no sweat. We can put together
> a 6 drive scsi array for the database and I will put the os
> on a couple of ide with raid 1.
That's cool, this damp piece of string could use the freed up bandwidth :)
> Why do we "need" a separate server for the cgi's? Are they
> that hard on the webserver?
Not separate, just separate from this server, and it's not a requirement, but my recommendation.
You can add search.postgresql.org as a vhost to any other machine(s).
Most of the time spent on searches, are spent in executing the cgi (provided of course, that the backend is fast).
Currently, I have the load spread evenly among 3 webservers (I use a reverse proxy load balancer for this), which at peak puts the load to somewhere between 3 and 4.
Also, as I was about to mention on IRC, you might want to consider porting the apache module to apache2 or use it on apache1, which is much faster than the cgi.
With 4 gig of ram however, you would probably be fine running it all on the one host.
... John
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2006-01-16 08:21:33 | Re: Infrastructure monitoring |
| Previous Message | Tino Wildenhain | 2006-01-15 21:04:20 | Re: Infrastructure monitoring |