On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:14:38 +0900 enchan <enchan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:38:18 +0100 > James Wilkinson <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Why do you want to use Tux? Are you really in a situation where you > > need a high-speed web server? (Most people would love to have the > > bandwidth to worry about the processor time their Web server needs). > > > > What's wrong with Apache? > > Thank you for your reply! > > Now I switched from Tux to Apache. Wow! It works so smooth! > > The reason why I used Tux is that my server need many connections. > In the past time, it seemed difficult to handle so many connections. > But I realize that situation had changed. > > Parent Server Generation: 0 > Server uptime: 7 minutes 12 seconds > 609 requests currently being processed, 0 idle workers > KKKKKKKKKKKKKCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKRKKKKKKKKKCKCCKKKKKKKKKKK > KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCKCKKKKKCKKKKKKKKKKK > KKKKRKKKCKKKKKKKKKKCKKKKKKKKCKKKKKKCKKCKCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCKKKK > KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCKKCKK > KKKKCKKKKCKKKK.KKKKKKKKKCKKKKKKKKCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCKKK > CKCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCKKKKKKKKKKK.KKKKKWKKKKKKKK > KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCKKKKCKKKKKCKKKKKKKCKKKKK > KKKKK.KKKKKKKKKKKKCKKKKKKKKKKKKKCKKKRKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCKKKK > WKKKKKKKKKKKCKKKKKKKKKKCKKKKKCKKKKKKKCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK.KC...K. > RK..K.KK.K.K.K.C.KKCW..KKKKKKKKKKK...KKK.K.K..KKKK.KK..K.K.KKKK. > After one day, system whose apache is configure to accept 640 connectionsgoes unstable. At least Apache should be compiled as worker MPM to serve many coonections such as 640 connectons. In my experience, Apache compiled with worker MPM has been running for one year serving 640 connections. -- enchan <enchan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
