You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> on 2009/11/12 17:30:22 UTC
Performance tuning documentation
The performance tuning documentation that we currently include in the
docs is simply awful. What with the comments about Apache 1.2 and the
suggestions of how to deal with the new Linux 2.0 kernel, I think it's
beyond fixing. It needs to be tossed and rewritten - although perhaps
there are parts that are salvageable.
I was wondering if someone has a performance doc that they could
contribute as a starting place? Perhaps Sander's talk from AC? Or if
someone would be willing to give some attention to the docs list for a
while to assist in writing something that would be useful to actual
admins in the real world.
--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Performance tuning documentation
Posted by Sander Temme <sa...@temme.net>.
On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:30 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> The performance tuning documentation that we currently include in the docs is simply awful. What with the comments about Apache 1.2 and the suggestions of how to deal with the new Linux 2.0 kernel, I think it's beyond fixing. It needs to be tossed and rewritten - although perhaps there are parts that are salvageable.
>
> I was wondering if someone has a performance doc that they could contribute as a starting place? Perhaps Sander's talk from AC? Or if someone would be willing to give some attention to the docs list for a while to assist in writing something that would be useful to actual admins in the real world.
I am willing to contribute my performance talk material, since I don't really give that presentation anymore. I have very few cycles, but would be willing to help work on making it suitable for inclusion in the httpd docs.
Over the years, I have tried to concentrate more on the tuning knobs available to the average admin, rather than dig into the operating system or httpd code.
Another source may be Colm's talks, but he is still giving those.
S.
--
sander@temme.net http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
Re: Performance tuning documentation
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Rich Bowen wrote:
> The performance tuning documentation that we currently include in the
> docs is simply awful. What with the comments about Apache 1.2 and the
> suggestions of how to deal with the new Linux 2.0 kernel, I think it's
> beyond fixing. It needs to be tossed and rewritten - although perhaps
> there are parts that are salvageable.
>
> I was wondering if someone has a performance doc that they could
> contribute as a starting place? Perhaps Sander's talk from AC? Or if
> someone would be willing to give some attention to the docs list for a
> while to assist in writing something that would be useful to actual
> admins in the real world.
Something else related that I think we should address are our default
config files and performance.
Up till now, the build has assumed that if a module was built, then a
LoadModule line should appear in the default config file for that
module. Because distros typically compile most (if not all) of the
modules, most (if not all) of the modules end up being loaded into the
server by default, in turn meaning lots of hook calling and per-request
config parsing is being done for no reason.
A pattern I've adopted is to put the load module alongside the config
fragment that requires it, like this:
<IfModule !mod_foo.c>
LoadModule foo_module mod_foo.so
</LoadModule>
If the config fragment isn't used, the corresponding module isn't loaded.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Performance tuning documentation
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Rich Bowen wrote:
> The performance tuning documentation that we currently include in the
> docs is simply awful. What with the comments about Apache 1.2 and the
> suggestions of how to deal with the new Linux 2.0 kernel, I think it's
> beyond fixing. It needs to be tossed and rewritten - although perhaps
> there are parts that are salvageable.
>
> I was wondering if someone has a performance doc that they could
> contribute as a starting place? Perhaps Sander's talk from AC? Or if
> someone would be willing to give some attention to the docs list for a
> while to assist in writing something that would be useful to actual
> admins in the real world.
Something else related that I think we should address are our default
config files and performance.
Up till now, the build has assumed that if a module was built, then a
LoadModule line should appear in the default config file for that
module. Because distros typically compile most (if not all) of the
modules, most (if not all) of the modules end up being loaded into the
server by default, in turn meaning lots of hook calling and per-request
config parsing is being done for no reason.
A pattern I've adopted is to put the load module alongside the config
fragment that requires it, like this:
<IfModule !mod_foo.c>
LoadModule foo_module mod_foo.so
</LoadModule>
If the config fragment isn't used, the corresponding module isn't loaded.
Regards,
Graham
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org