[ATrpms-users] dl.atrpms.net down?

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 09:34:40AM -0700, David Rees wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:10 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 02:15:17AM -0700, David Rees wrote:
> >  > lighttpd can handle a LOT more concurrent users than Apache.
> >
> >  The problem is not concurrent users, but single users eating up 40-60
> >  slots for getting some more download speed for themselves while
> >  closing the doors to 39-59 other users.
> >
> >  Apache has more plugins that can fence this off (like
> >  mod_limitipconn).
> 
> Yes, but my point remains - instead of being primarily memory limited
> like Apache, lighttpd can easily scale to thousands of connections on
> the same hardware. You likely wouldn't even need to bother limiting
> connections by IP address.

The machine did not starve on memory, but on bandwidth and
reserved slots. I just feel it is unfair that people occupy more slots
to eat more bandwidth than the others resulting in less bandwidth
overall. Furthermore the tactic of requesting a lrage file in several
chunks *simulaneously* requires the memory cache to be split across
that file spooling out all other objects-in-memory. This is true
regardless of apache/lighttpd or any other web serving technology that
isn't intelligent to serialize the "accelerated" range
requests.

Imagine all users having download accelerators, then for 100 users you
would need about 1000 slots, out of which 900 are just for the
"accelerating part". And all would effectively request the whole file
as they request the chunks in parallel resulting in lots of cache
misses.

> It can definitely be a pain to migrate an Apache config to lighttpd,
> but for sites like yours I think it can be worth it.

Actually there are about 10 projects hanging on the same config partly
managed by different people (from rpmrepo, lm-sensors, ivtv, mythdora,
even parts of mythbuntu), so that a change from apache (which most
already know how to tweak) to anything else would be a great pain.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-users/attachments/20080501/d29a2703/attachment.bin