You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@httpd.apache.org by Rob Morin <ro...@ilabsinc.com> on 2011/06/13 20:23:04 UTC
[users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
If I see all the slots filled with W and C only, what would that indicate,
this is during high traffic times..
We are on Centos 64 bit with Apache 2.2, and have 6 webservers behind
HAproxy
Thanks..
Rob Morin
Systems Administrator
Infinity Labs Inc.
(514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
ilabs-email-sig
Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
Posted by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>.
I'm not an haproxy maven, so can't say...
On 13/06/2011 22:13, Rob Morin wrote:
>
> We were told that we could not use keepalive in apache as the haproxy
> load balancers use KeepAlived for our HTTPS connections.... I do not
> have access to the LBs(load balancers) I have access to just the
> config data for the clusters for each website...
>
>
>
> Should I use keepalive in Apache nayways?
>
>
>
>
>
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*Issac Goldstand [mailto:margol@beamartyr.net]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> *To:* users@httpd.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
>
>
>
> Given that you're running PHP (based on eAccellerator - and BTW, I
> personally prefer APC), the W and C are probably because reading the
> request takes up very little time; most of the request time goes to
> PHP execution (which is all "W" if I'm not mistaken). The remaining
> "C"s I'm not so sure about, but I imagine you have keepalive's off (or
> I'd expect to hear of "K"s) and the closing is just your backend
> waiting for the load-balancer to get back and finish closing the
> socket... But I'm curious as to why that should be - do you not have
> keepalives enabled between your loadbalancer and backends?
>
> On 13/06/2011 22:01, Rob Morin wrote:
>
> My problem is as it stands, the loads are too high already, at peek
> times our Dual Quad Core Xeons with 18 gigs of ram go as high as
> 100.00 and this is with a max clients of 600. We do use memcache and
> eaccelerator...
>
>
>
> I mean I should have been more clear... I do know what the W and C are
> I was just wondering why there would only W and Cs.. sorry for the
> confusion there...
>
>
>
> When the server is at a load of 100 we still have 2 to 3 gigs of ram
> to spare and there is never any swapping...
>
>
>
> I just do not think that the problem is server capacity, it seems to
> be something else I think, but not sure what?
>
>
>
> In a top I see every couple of mins on all servers this...
>
> 22498 apache 15 0 0 0 0 Z 0.3 0.0 0:45.98 httpd
> <defunct>
>
>
>
> Right now all our server are at ...
>
>
>
> top - 14:58:31 up 7 days, 3:49, 3 users, load average: 138.71,
> 121.10, 85.80
>
> Tasks: 759 total, 1 running, 757 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
>
> Cpu(s): 13.2%us, 2.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 82.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.1%hi,
> 1.3%si, 0.0%st
>
> Mem: 18470312k total, 12042288k used, 6428024k free, 580252k buffers
>
> Swap: 2096472k total, 0k used, 2096472k free, 8233784k cached
>
>
>
>
>
> Current Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 15:00:26 EDT
>
> Restart Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 12:54:23 EDT
>
> Parent Server Generation: 0
>
> Server uptime: 2 hours 6 minutes 3 seconds
>
> Total accesses: 1062620 - Total Traffic: 197.1 MB
>
> CPU Usage: u2966.14 s1473.45 cu0 cs0 - 58.7% CPU load
>
> 141 requests/sec - 26.7 kB/second - 194 B/request
>
> 378 requests currently being processed, 201 idle workers
>
> WW_WW_CC_WCC_.__WWWWWW_.WW__W__W___WCWWCWW_CWW_CWWCWWW_WW__C__WW
>
> W__W___.WCC____CCCWWW_WC_W_WW_C_CCWWWC__CW_W.WWWWWW_W_CW.W__WWCC
>
> WWRW_WWW_WW___WC_WW_RWW_W_W_WWW_C___WWCCC__WWWWW_W___WC_C.WWWWC_
>
> W_WWW___W__C_WWWWW_WWWWW_WW_W.WWW_WW_..___WCW___W_CWC_W_WW_WWWW.
>
> WC_WCWWCWCW_W_CC_.__.__WWC_CCCW_W_WW_W_W_WCWWWW___WWW_C__W__WWW_
>
> _CWWC_W.WCW_CWCWW_WCWCW__W_CCW._WCCW_WC__WWWWW_C_WW_WCWWW__WCCCC
>
> W_W_W_WWCWWW_WWW_WWW_CWC____..WWW_W__W_.CWC_C_WC_C_WC___WW_WWWC_
>
> _W_WW__WWW_C_WWCW__WW_W_WCW_W__CCWCCC_WWCW_..___WW_C_WWWWW_WCW_W
>
> __.__WW__W_C_CC__WCCWWWCWC_WW__W_R_WWC_W_W__WWWWWWWC_C_C_W__CRC_
>
> WWCW_C__._WW_WCWWWWWW_WW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am sad....
>
>
>
>
>
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*Issac Goldstand [mailto:margol@beamartyr.net]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2011 2:36 PM
> *To:* users@httpd.apache.org <ma...@httpd.apache.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
>
>
>
> That your server(s) is/are swamped.
>
> Consider adding more worker threads/processes.
>
> Issac
>
> On 13/06/2011 21:23, Rob Morin wrote:
>
> If I see all the slots filled with W and C only, what would that
> indicate, this is during high traffic times..
>
>
>
> We are on Centos 64 bit with Apache 2.2, and have 6 webservers behind
> HAproxy
>
>
>
> Thanks..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
RE: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
Posted by Rob Morin <ro...@ilabsinc.com>.
We were told that we could not use keepalive in apache as the haproxy load
balancers use KeepAlived for our HTTPS connections.. I do not have access to
the LBs(load balancers) I have access to just the config data for the
clusters for each website.
Should I use keepalive in Apache nayways?
Rob Morin
Systems Administrator
Infinity Labs Inc.
(514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
ilabs-email-sig
From: Issac Goldstand [mailto:margol@beamartyr.net]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:08 PM
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
Given that you're running PHP (based on eAccellerator - and BTW, I
personally prefer APC), the W and C are probably because reading the request
takes up very little time; most of the request time goes to PHP execution
(which is all "W" if I'm not mistaken). The remaining "C"s I'm not so sure
about, but I imagine you have keepalive's off (or I'd expect to hear of
"K"s) and the closing is just your backend waiting for the load-balancer to
get back and finish closing the socket... But I'm curious as to why that
should be - do you not have keepalives enabled between your loadbalancer and
backends?
On 13/06/2011 22:01, Rob Morin wrote:
My problem is as it stands, the loads are too high already, at peek times
our Dual Quad Core Xeons with 18 gigs of ram go as high as 100.00 and this
is with a max clients of 600. We do use memcache and eaccelerator.
I mean I should have been more clear. I do know what the W and C are I was
just wondering why there would only W and Cs.. sorry for the confusion
there.
When the server is at a load of 100 we still have 2 to 3 gigs of ram to
spare and there is never any swapping.
I just do not think that the problem is server capacity, it seems to be
something else I think, but not sure what?
In a top I see every couple of mins on all servers this.
22498 apache 15 0 0 0 0 Z 0.3 0.0 0:45.98 httpd <defunct>
Right now all our server are at .
top - 14:58:31 up 7 days, 3:49, 3 users, load average: 138.71, 121.10,
85.80
Tasks: 759 total, 1 running, 757 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
Cpu(s): 13.2%us, 2.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 82.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.1%hi, 1.3%si,
0.0%st
Mem: 18470312k total, 12042288k used, 6428024k free, 580252k buffers
Swap: 2096472k total, 0k used, 2096472k free, 8233784k cached
Current Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 15:00:26 EDT
Restart Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 12:54:23 EDT
Parent Server Generation: 0
Server uptime: 2 hours 6 minutes 3 seconds
Total accesses: 1062620 - Total Traffic: 197.1 MB
CPU Usage: u2966.14 s1473.45 cu0 cs0 - 58.7% CPU load
141 requests/sec - 26.7 kB/second - 194 B/request
378 requests currently being processed, 201 idle workers
WW_WW_CC_WCC_.__WWWWWW_.WW__W__W___WCWWCWW_CWW_CWWCWWW_WW__C__WW
W__W___.WCC____CCCWWW_WC_W_WW_C_CCWWWC__CW_W.WWWWWW_W_CW.W__WWCC
WWRW_WWW_WW___WC_WW_RWW_W_W_WWW_C___WWCCC__WWWWW_W___WC_C.WWWWC_
W_WWW___W__C_WWWWW_WWWWW_WW_W.WWW_WW_..___WCW___W_CWC_W_WW_WWWW.
WC_WCWWCWCW_W_CC_.__.__WWC_CCCW_W_WW_W_W_WCWWWW___WWW_C__W__WWW_
_CWWC_W.WCW_CWCWW_WCWCW__W_CCW._WCCW_WC__WWWWW_C_WW_WCWWW__WCCCC
W_W_W_WWCWWW_WWW_WWW_CWC____..WWW_W__W_.CWC_C_WC_C_WC___WW_WWWC_
_W_WW__WWW_C_WWCW__WW_W_WCW_W__CCWCCC_WWCW_..___WW_C_WWWWW_WCW_W
__.__WW__W_C_CC__WCCWWWCWC_WW__W_R_WWC_W_W__WWWWWWWC_C_C_W__CRC_
WWCW_C__._WW_WCWWWWWW_WW
I am sad..
Rob Morin
Systems Administrator
Infinity Labs Inc.
(514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
ilabs-email-sig
From: Issac Goldstand [mailto:margol@beamartyr.net]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:36 PM
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
That your server(s) is/are swamped.
Consider adding more worker threads/processes.
Issac
On 13/06/2011 21:23, Rob Morin wrote:
If I see all the slots filled with W and C only, what would that indicate,
this is during high traffic times..
We are on Centos 64 bit with Apache 2.2, and have 6 webservers behind
HAproxy
Thanks..
Rob Morin
Systems Administrator
Infinity Labs Inc.
(514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
ilabs-email-sig
Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
Posted by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>.
Given that you're running PHP (based on eAccellerator - and BTW, I
personally prefer APC), the W and C are probably because reading the
request takes up very little time; most of the request time goes to PHP
execution (which is all "W" if I'm not mistaken). The remaining "C"s
I'm not so sure about, but I imagine you have keepalive's off (or I'd
expect to hear of "K"s) and the closing is just your backend waiting for
the load-balancer to get back and finish closing the socket... But I'm
curious as to why that should be - do you not have keepalives enabled
between your loadbalancer and backends?
On 13/06/2011 22:01, Rob Morin wrote:
>
> My problem is as it stands, the loads are too high already, at peek
> times our Dual Quad Core Xeons with 18 gigs of ram go as high as
> 100.00 and this is with a max clients of 600. We do use memcache and
> eaccelerator...
>
>
>
> I mean I should have been more clear... I do know what the W and C are
> I was just wondering why there would only W and Cs.. sorry for the
> confusion there...
>
>
>
> When the server is at a load of 100 we still have 2 to 3 gigs of ram
> to spare and there is never any swapping...
>
>
>
> I just do not think that the problem is server capacity, it seems to
> be something else I think, but not sure what?
>
>
>
> In a top I see every couple of mins on all servers this...
>
> 22498 apache 15 0 0 0 0 Z 0.3 0.0 0:45.98 httpd
> <defunct>
>
>
>
> Right now all our server are at ...
>
>
>
> top - 14:58:31 up 7 days, 3:49, 3 users, load average: 138.71,
> 121.10, 85.80
>
> Tasks: 759 total, 1 running, 757 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
>
> Cpu(s): 13.2%us, 2.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 82.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.1%hi,
> 1.3%si, 0.0%st
>
> Mem: 18470312k total, 12042288k used, 6428024k free, 580252k buffers
>
> Swap: 2096472k total, 0k used, 2096472k free, 8233784k cached
>
>
>
>
>
> Current Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 15:00:26 EDT
>
> Restart Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 12:54:23 EDT
>
> Parent Server Generation: 0
>
> Server uptime: 2 hours 6 minutes 3 seconds
>
> Total accesses: 1062620 - Total Traffic: 197.1 MB
>
> CPU Usage: u2966.14 s1473.45 cu0 cs0 - 58.7% CPU load
>
> 141 requests/sec - 26.7 kB/second - 194 B/request
>
> 378 requests currently being processed, 201 idle workers
>
> WW_WW_CC_WCC_.__WWWWWW_.WW__W__W___WCWWCWW_CWW_CWWCWWW_WW__C__WW
>
> W__W___.WCC____CCCWWW_WC_W_WW_C_CCWWWC__CW_W.WWWWWW_W_CW.W__WWCC
>
> WWRW_WWW_WW___WC_WW_RWW_W_W_WWW_C___WWCCC__WWWWW_W___WC_C.WWWWC_
>
> W_WWW___W__C_WWWWW_WWWWW_WW_W.WWW_WW_..___WCW___W_CWC_W_WW_WWWW.
>
> WC_WCWWCWCW_W_CC_.__.__WWC_CCCW_W_WW_W_W_WCWWWW___WWW_C__W__WWW_
>
> _CWWC_W.WCW_CWCWW_WCWCW__W_CCW._WCCW_WC__WWWWW_C_WW_WCWWW__WCCCC
>
> W_W_W_WWCWWW_WWW_WWW_CWC____..WWW_W__W_.CWC_C_WC_C_WC___WW_WWWC_
>
> _W_WW__WWW_C_WWCW__WW_W_WCW_W__CCWCCC_WWCW_..___WW_C_WWWWW_WCW_W
>
> __.__WW__W_C_CC__WCCWWWCWC_WW__W_R_WWC_W_W__WWWWWWWC_C_C_W__CRC_
>
> WWCW_C__._WW_WCWWWWWW_WW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am sad....
>
>
>
>
>
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*Issac Goldstand [mailto:margol@beamartyr.net]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2011 2:36 PM
> *To:* users@httpd.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
>
>
>
> That your server(s) is/are swamped.
>
> Consider adding more worker threads/processes.
>
> Issac
>
> On 13/06/2011 21:23, Rob Morin wrote:
>
> If I see all the slots filled with W and C only, what would that
> indicate, this is during high traffic times..
>
>
>
> We are on Centos 64 bit with Apache 2.2, and have 6 webservers behind
> HAproxy
>
>
>
> Thanks..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.
----- Original Message -----
>
>
>
> Thanks for the info I will look in to it with our Hosting provider..
> and see what we can do… sound s a bit complicated, but maybe worth
> it in the end…
Of course you can always throw more hardware at it..
http://teddziuba.com/2010/12/the-3-basic-tools-of-systems-engineering.html
The question is if it doesn't come cheaper to invest a little time.
I'd also look into
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/mod/mod_proxy_fcgi.html
as an alternative to a special instance with mod_fcgid.
Also:
http://blag.esotericsystems.at/2010/02/introducing-more-caching/
> Thanks again…
i
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jeroen Geilman [mailto:jeroen@adaptr.nl]
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:33 PM
> To: users@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status
> page
>
>
>
> On 06/13/2011 09:23 PM, Rob Morin wrote:
>
> Can you please point me in some direction when you say “ Consider
> proxying dynamic requests to a dedicated backend (which can run on
> the same machine).”
>
>
> 1. set up apache to run the worker MPM; this has a much smaller
> memory footprint, and can start threads much faster than prefork
> can.
> Much, much faster.
> Scale these "middle-ends" to handle 2000+ threads simultaenously;
> this needs only a few gigs.
> 2. proxy all dynamic content - however identified - to a dedicated
> mod_fcgid backend that runs your PHP (and cache, etc)
> You can now control the exact resource ratio between static and
> dynamic content, and tune it to your requirements, or so your
> overall resources don't get clobbered.
> 3. either use the same box(es) to run the fcgid PHP backend, or
> delegate this task to separate backends, i.e. reallocate 3 of the
> boxes to run workerproxies + static content, and use the other 3 to
> run only dynamic content.
>
> There's more than one way to skin the cat.
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you mean a reverse proxy to go before the webservers?
>
> A URL of sorts?
>
>
>
> Thanks for your replies so far..
>
>
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jeroen Geilman [ mailto:jeroen@adaptr.nl ]
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:10 PM
> To: users@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status
> page
>
>
>
> On 06/13/2011 09:01 PM, Rob Morin wrote:
>
> My problem is as it stands, the loads are too high already, at peek
> times our Dual Quad Core Xeons with 18 gigs of ram go as high as
> 100.00 and this is with a max clients of 600. We do use memcache and
> eaccelerator…
>
>
>
> I mean I should have been more clear… I do know what the W and C are
> I was just wondering why there would only W and Cs.. sorry for the
> confusion there…
>
>
>
> When the server is at a load of 100 we still have 2 to 3 gigs of ram
> to spare and there is never any swapping…
>
>
>
> I just do not think that the problem is server capacity, it seems to
> be something else I think, but not sure what?
>
>
>
> In a top I see every couple of mins on all servers this…
>
> 22498 apache 15 0 0 0 0 Z 0.3 0.0 0:45.98 httpd <defunct>
>
>
>
> So you're running bad scripts.
>
> Consider proxying dynamic requests to a dedicated backend (which can
> run on the same machine).
>
> This offers much better control over resources, and will host 3 times
> the requests easily.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Right now all our server are at …
>
>
>
> top - 14:58:31 up 7 days, 3:49, 3 users, load average: 138.71,
> 121.10, 85.80
>
> Tasks: 759 total, 1 running, 757 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
>
> Cpu(s): 13.2%us, 2.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 82.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.1%hi, 1.3%si,
> 0.0%st
>
> Mem: 18470312k total, 12042288k used, 6428024k free, 580252k buffers
>
> Swap: 2096472k total, 0k used, 2096472k free, 8233784k cached
>
>
>
>
>
> Current Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 15:00:26 EDT
>
> Restart Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 12:54:23 EDT
>
> Parent Server Generation: 0
>
> Server uptime: 2 hours 6 minutes 3 seconds
>
> Total accesses: 1062620 - Total Traffic: 197.1 MB
>
> CPU Usage: u2966.14 s1473.45 cu0 cs0 - 58.7% CPU load
>
> 141 requests/sec - 26.7 kB/second - 194 B/request
>
> 378 requests currently being processed, 201 idle workers
>
> WW_WW_CC_WCC_.__WWWWWW_.WW__W__W___WCWWCWW_CWW_CWWCWWW_WW__C__WW
>
> W__W___.WCC____CCCWWW_WC_W_WW_C_CCWWWC__CW_W.WWWWWW_W_CW.W__WWCC
>
> WWRW_WWW_WW___WC_WW_RWW_W_W_WWW_C___WWCCC__WWWWW_W___WC_C.WWWWC_
>
> W_WWW___W__C_WWWWW_WWWWW_WW_W.WWW_WW_..___WCW___W_CWC_W_WW_WWWW.
>
> WC_WCWWCWCW_W_CC_.__.__WWC_CCCW_W_WW_W_W_WCWWWW___WWW_C__W__WWW_
>
> _CWWC_W.WCW_CWCWW_WCWCW__W_CCW._WCCW_WC__WWWWW_C_WW_WCWWW__WCCCC
>
> W_W_W_WWCWWW_WWW_WWW_CWC____..WWW_W__W_.CWC_C_WC_C_WC___WW_WWWC_
>
> _W_WW__WWW_C_WWCW__WW_W_WCW_W__CCWCCC_WWCW_..___WW_C_WWWWW_WCW_W
>
> __.__WW__W_C_CC__WCCWWWCWC_WW__W_R_WWC_W_W__WWWWWWWC_C_C_W__CRC_
>
> WWCW_C__._WW_WCWWWWWW_WW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am sad….
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Issac Goldstand [ mailto:margol@beamartyr.net ]
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:36 PM
> To: users@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status
> page
>
>
>
> That your server(s) is/are swamped.
>
> Consider adding more worker threads/processes.
>
> Issac
>
> On 13/06/2011 21:23, Rob Morin wrote:
>
> If I see all the slots filled with W and C only, what would that
> indicate, this is during high traffic times..
>
>
>
> We are on Centos 64 bit with Apache 2.2, and have 6 webservers behind
> HAproxy
>
>
>
> Thanks..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- J.
>
>
>
>
> -- J.
--
Igor Galić
Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
RE: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
Posted by Rob Morin <ro...@ilabsinc.com>.
Thanks for the info I will look in to it with our Hosting provider.. and see
what we can do. sound s a bit complicated, but maybe worth it in the end.
Thanks again.
Rob Morin
Systems Administrator
Infinity Labs Inc.
(514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
ilabs-email-sig
From: Jeroen Geilman [mailto:jeroen@adaptr.nl]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:33 PM
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
On 06/13/2011 09:23 PM, Rob Morin wrote:
Can you please point me in some direction when you say "Consider proxying
dynamic requests to a dedicated backend (which can run on the same
machine)."
1. set up apache to run the worker MPM; this has a much smaller memory
footprint, and can start threads much faster than prefork can.
Much, much faster.
Scale these "middle-ends" to handle 2000+ threads simultaenously; this
needs only a few gigs.
2. proxy all dynamic content - however identified - to a dedicated mod_fcgid
backend that runs your PHP (and cache, etc)
You can now control the exact resource ratio between static and dynamic
content, and tune it to your requirements, or so your overall resources
don't get clobbered.
3. either use the same box(es) to run the fcgid PHP backend, or delegate
this task to separate backends, i.e. reallocate 3 of the boxes to run
workerproxies + static content, and use the other 3 to run only dynamic
content.
There's more than one way to skin the cat.
Do you mean a reverse proxy to go before the webservers?
A URL of sorts?
Thanks for your replies so far..
J
Rob Morin
Systems Administrator
Infinity Labs Inc.
(514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
ilabs-email-sig
From: Jeroen Geilman [mailto:jeroen@adaptr.nl]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:10 PM
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
On 06/13/2011 09:01 PM, Rob Morin wrote:
My problem is as it stands, the loads are too high already, at peek times
our Dual Quad Core Xeons with 18 gigs of ram go as high as 100.00 and this
is with a max clients of 600. We do use memcache and eaccelerator.
I mean I should have been more clear. I do know what the W and C are I was
just wondering why there would only W and Cs.. sorry for the confusion
there.
When the server is at a load of 100 we still have 2 to 3 gigs of ram to
spare and there is never any swapping.
I just do not think that the problem is server capacity, it seems to be
something else I think, but not sure what?
In a top I see every couple of mins on all servers this.
22498 apache 15 0 0 0 0 Z 0.3 0.0 0:45.98 httpd <defunct>
So you're running bad scripts.
Consider proxying dynamic requests to a dedicated backend (which can run on
the same machine).
This offers much better control over resources, and will host 3 times the
requests easily.
Right now all our server are at .
top - 14:58:31 up 7 days, 3:49, 3 users, load average: 138.71, 121.10,
85.80
Tasks: 759 total, 1 running, 757 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
Cpu(s): 13.2%us, 2.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 82.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.1%hi, 1.3%si,
0.0%st
Mem: 18470312k total, 12042288k used, 6428024k free, 580252k buffers
Swap: 2096472k total, 0k used, 2096472k free, 8233784k cached
Current Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 15:00:26 EDT
Restart Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 12:54:23 EDT
Parent Server Generation: 0
Server uptime: 2 hours 6 minutes 3 seconds
Total accesses: 1062620 - Total Traffic: 197.1 MB
CPU Usage: u2966.14 s1473.45 cu0 cs0 - 58.7% CPU load
141 requests/sec - 26.7 kB/second - 194 B/request
378 requests currently being processed, 201 idle workers
WW_WW_CC_WCC_.__WWWWWW_.WW__W__W___WCWWCWW_CWW_CWWCWWW_WW__C__WW
W__W___.WCC____CCCWWW_WC_W_WW_C_CCWWWC__CW_W.WWWWWW_W_CW.W__WWCC
WWRW_WWW_WW___WC_WW_RWW_W_W_WWW_C___WWCCC__WWWWW_W___WC_C.WWWWC_
W_WWW___W__C_WWWWW_WWWWW_WW_W.WWW_WW_..___WCW___W_CWC_W_WW_WWWW.
WC_WCWWCWCW_W_CC_.__.__WWC_CCCW_W_WW_W_W_WCWWWW___WWW_C__W__WWW_
_CWWC_W.WCW_CWCWW_WCWCW__W_CCW._WCCW_WC__WWWWW_C_WW_WCWWW__WCCCC
W_W_W_WWCWWW_WWW_WWW_CWC____..WWW_W__W_.CWC_C_WC_C_WC___WW_WWWC_
_W_WW__WWW_C_WWCW__WW_W_WCW_W__CCWCCC_WWCW_..___WW_C_WWWWW_WCW_W
__.__WW__W_C_CC__WCCWWWCWC_WW__W_R_WWC_W_W__WWWWWWWC_C_C_W__CRC_
WWCW_C__._WW_WCWWWWWW_WW
I am sad..
Rob Morin
Systems Administrator
Infinity Labs Inc.
(514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
ilabs-email-sig
From: Issac Goldstand [mailto:margol@beamartyr.net]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:36 PM
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
That your server(s) is/are swamped.
Consider adding more worker threads/processes.
Issac
On 13/06/2011 21:23, Rob Morin wrote:
If I see all the slots filled with W and C only, what would that indicate,
this is during high traffic times..
We are on Centos 64 bit with Apache 2.2, and have 6 webservers behind
HAproxy
Thanks..
Rob Morin
Systems Administrator
Infinity Labs Inc.
(514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
ilabs-email-sig
--
J.
--
J.
Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
Posted by Jeroen Geilman <je...@adaptr.nl>.
On 06/13/2011 09:23 PM, Rob Morin wrote:
>
> Can you please point me in some direction when you say "Consider
> proxying dynamic requests to a dedicated backend (which can run on the
> same machine)."
>
1. set up apache to run the worker MPM; this has a much smaller memory
footprint, and can start threads much faster than prefork can.
Much, much faster.
Scale these "middle-ends" to handle 2000+ threads simultaenously;
this needs only a few gigs.
2. proxy all dynamic content - however identified - to a dedicated
mod_fcgid backend that runs your PHP (and cache, etc)
You can now control the exact resource ratio between static and
dynamic content, and tune it to your requirements, or so your overall
resources don't get clobbered.
3. either use the same box(es) to run the fcgid PHP backend, or delegate
this task to separate backends, i.e. reallocate 3 of the boxes to run
workerproxies + static content, and use the other 3 to run only dynamic
content.
There's more than one way to skin the cat.
> Do you mean a reverse proxy to go before the webservers?
>
> A URL of sorts?
>
> Thanks for your replies so far..
>
> J
>
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
> *From:*Jeroen Geilman [mailto:jeroen@adaptr.nl]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2011 3:10 PM
> *To:* users@httpd.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
>
> On 06/13/2011 09:01 PM, Rob Morin wrote:
>
> My problem is as it stands, the loads are too high already, at peek
> times our Dual Quad Core Xeons with 18 gigs of ram go as high as
> 100.00 and this is with a max clients of 600. We do use memcache and
> eaccelerator...
>
> I mean I should have been more clear... I do know what the W and C are
> I was just wondering why there would only W and Cs.. sorry for the
> confusion there...
>
> When the server is at a load of 100 we still have 2 to 3 gigs of ram
> to spare and there is never any swapping...
>
> I just do not think that the problem is server capacity, it seems to
> be something else I think, but not sure what?
>
> In a top I see every couple of mins on all servers this...
>
> 22498 apache 15 0 0 0 0 Z 0.3 0.0 0:45.98 httpd
> <defunct>
>
>
>
> So you're running bad scripts.
>
> Consider proxying dynamic requests to a dedicated backend (which can
> run on the same machine).
>
> This offers much better control over resources, and will host 3 times
> the requests easily.
>
>
>
> Right now all our server are at ...
>
> top - 14:58:31 up 7 days, 3:49, 3 users, load average: 138.71,
> 121.10, 85.80
>
> Tasks: 759 total, 1 running, 757 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
>
> Cpu(s): 13.2%us, 2.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 82.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.1%hi,
> 1.3%si, 0.0%st
>
> Mem: 18470312k total, 12042288k used, 6428024k free, 580252k buffers
>
> Swap: 2096472k total, 0k used, 2096472k free, 8233784k cached
>
> Current Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 15:00:26 EDT
>
> Restart Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 12:54:23 EDT
>
> Parent Server Generation: 0
>
> Server uptime: 2 hours 6 minutes 3 seconds
>
> Total accesses: 1062620 - Total Traffic: 197.1 MB
>
> CPU Usage: u2966.14 s1473.45 cu0 cs0 - 58.7% CPU load
>
> 141 requests/sec - 26.7 kB/second - 194 B/request
>
> 378 requests currently being processed, 201 idle workers
>
> WW_WW_CC_WCC_.__WWWWWW_.WW__W__W___WCWWCWW_CWW_CWWCWWW_WW__C__WW
>
> W__W___.WCC____CCCWWW_WC_W_WW_C_CCWWWC__CW_W.WWWWWW_W_CW.W__WWCC
>
> WWRW_WWW_WW___WC_WW_RWW_W_W_WWW_C___WWCCC__WWWWW_W___WC_C.WWWWC_
>
> W_WWW___W__C_WWWWW_WWWWW_WW_W.WWW_WW_..___WCW___W_CWC_W_WW_WWWW.
>
> WC_WCWWCWCW_W_CC_.__.__WWC_CCCW_W_WW_W_W_WCWWWW___WWW_C__W__WWW_
>
> _CWWC_W.WCW_CWCWW_WCWCW__W_CCW._WCCW_WC__WWWWW_C_WW_WCWWW__WCCCC
>
> W_W_W_WWCWWW_WWW_WWW_CWC____..WWW_W__W_.CWC_C_WC_C_WC___WW_WWWC_
>
> _W_WW__WWW_C_WWCW__WW_W_WCW_W__CCWCCC_WWCW_..___WW_C_WWWWW_WCW_W
>
> __.__WW__W_C_CC__WCCWWWCWC_WW__W_R_WWC_W_W__WWWWWWWC_C_C_W__CRC_
>
> WWCW_C__._WW_WCWWWWWW_WW
>
> I am sad....
>
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
> *From:*Issac Goldstand [mailto:margol@beamartyr.net]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2011 2:36 PM
> *To:* users@httpd.apache.org <ma...@httpd.apache.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
>
> That your server(s) is/are swamped.
>
> Consider adding more worker threads/processes.
>
> Issac
>
> On 13/06/2011 21:23, Rob Morin wrote:
>
> If I see all the slots filled with W and C only, what would that
> indicate, this is during high traffic times..
>
> We are on Centos 64 bit with Apache 2.2, and have 6 webservers behind
> HAproxy
>
> Thanks..
>
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
>
>
>
> --
> J.
--
J.
RE: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
Posted by Rob Morin <ro...@ilabsinc.com>.
Can you please point me in some direction when you say "Consider proxying
dynamic requests to a dedicated backend (which can run on the same
machine)."
Do you mean a reverse proxy to go before the webservers?
A URL of sorts?
Thanks for your replies so far..
J
Rob Morin
Systems Administrator
Infinity Labs Inc.
(514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
ilabs-email-sig
From: Jeroen Geilman [mailto:jeroen@adaptr.nl]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:10 PM
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
On 06/13/2011 09:01 PM, Rob Morin wrote:
My problem is as it stands, the loads are too high already, at peek times
our Dual Quad Core Xeons with 18 gigs of ram go as high as 100.00 and this
is with a max clients of 600. We do use memcache and eaccelerator.
I mean I should have been more clear. I do know what the W and C are I was
just wondering why there would only W and Cs.. sorry for the confusion
there.
When the server is at a load of 100 we still have 2 to 3 gigs of ram to
spare and there is never any swapping.
I just do not think that the problem is server capacity, it seems to be
something else I think, but not sure what?
In a top I see every couple of mins on all servers this.
22498 apache 15 0 0 0 0 Z 0.3 0.0 0:45.98 httpd <defunct>
So you're running bad scripts.
Consider proxying dynamic requests to a dedicated backend (which can run on
the same machine).
This offers much better control over resources, and will host 3 times the
requests easily.
Right now all our server are at .
top - 14:58:31 up 7 days, 3:49, 3 users, load average: 138.71, 121.10,
85.80
Tasks: 759 total, 1 running, 757 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
Cpu(s): 13.2%us, 2.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 82.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.1%hi, 1.3%si,
0.0%st
Mem: 18470312k total, 12042288k used, 6428024k free, 580252k buffers
Swap: 2096472k total, 0k used, 2096472k free, 8233784k cached
Current Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 15:00:26 EDT
Restart Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 12:54:23 EDT
Parent Server Generation: 0
Server uptime: 2 hours 6 minutes 3 seconds
Total accesses: 1062620 - Total Traffic: 197.1 MB
CPU Usage: u2966.14 s1473.45 cu0 cs0 - 58.7% CPU load
141 requests/sec - 26.7 kB/second - 194 B/request
378 requests currently being processed, 201 idle workers
WW_WW_CC_WCC_.__WWWWWW_.WW__W__W___WCWWCWW_CWW_CWWCWWW_WW__C__WW
W__W___.WCC____CCCWWW_WC_W_WW_C_CCWWWC__CW_W.WWWWWW_W_CW.W__WWCC
WWRW_WWW_WW___WC_WW_RWW_W_W_WWW_C___WWCCC__WWWWW_W___WC_C.WWWWC_
W_WWW___W__C_WWWWW_WWWWW_WW_W.WWW_WW_..___WCW___W_CWC_W_WW_WWWW.
WC_WCWWCWCW_W_CC_.__.__WWC_CCCW_W_WW_W_W_WCWWWW___WWW_C__W__WWW_
_CWWC_W.WCW_CWCWW_WCWCW__W_CCW._WCCW_WC__WWWWW_C_WW_WCWWW__WCCCC
W_W_W_WWCWWW_WWW_WWW_CWC____..WWW_W__W_.CWC_C_WC_C_WC___WW_WWWC_
_W_WW__WWW_C_WWCW__WW_W_WCW_W__CCWCCC_WWCW_..___WW_C_WWWWW_WCW_W
__.__WW__W_C_CC__WCCWWWCWC_WW__W_R_WWC_W_W__WWWWWWWC_C_C_W__CRC_
WWCW_C__._WW_WCWWWWWW_WW
I am sad..
Rob Morin
Systems Administrator
Infinity Labs Inc.
(514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
ilabs-email-sig
From: Issac Goldstand [mailto:margol@beamartyr.net]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:36 PM
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
That your server(s) is/are swamped.
Consider adding more worker threads/processes.
Issac
On 13/06/2011 21:23, Rob Morin wrote:
If I see all the slots filled with W and C only, what would that indicate,
this is during high traffic times..
We are on Centos 64 bit with Apache 2.2, and have 6 webservers behind
HAproxy
Thanks..
Rob Morin
Systems Administrator
Infinity Labs Inc.
(514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
ilabs-email-sig
--
J.
Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
Posted by Jeroen Geilman <je...@adaptr.nl>.
On 06/13/2011 09:01 PM, Rob Morin wrote:
>
> My problem is as it stands, the loads are too high already, at peek
> times our Dual Quad Core Xeons with 18 gigs of ram go as high as
> 100.00 and this is with a max clients of 600. We do use memcache and
> eaccelerator...
>
> I mean I should have been more clear... I do know what the W and C are
> I was just wondering why there would only W and Cs.. sorry for the
> confusion there...
>
> When the server is at a load of 100 we still have 2 to 3 gigs of ram
> to spare and there is never any swapping...
>
> I just do not think that the problem is server capacity, it seems to
> be something else I think, but not sure what?
>
> In a top I see every couple of mins on all servers this...
>
> 22498 apache 15 0 0 0 0 Z 0.3 0.0 0:45.98 httpd
> <defunct>
>
So you're running bad scripts.
Consider proxying dynamic requests to a dedicated backend (which can run
on the same machine).
This offers much better control over resources, and will host 3 times
the requests easily.
> Right now all our server are at ...
>
> top - 14:58:31 up 7 days, 3:49, 3 users, load average: 138.71,
> 121.10, 85.80
>
> Tasks: 759 total, 1 running, 757 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
>
> Cpu(s): 13.2%us, 2.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 82.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.1%hi,
> 1.3%si, 0.0%st
>
> Mem: 18470312k total, 12042288k used, 6428024k free, 580252k buffers
>
> Swap: 2096472k total, 0k used, 2096472k free, 8233784k cached
>
> Current Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 15:00:26 EDT
>
> Restart Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 12:54:23 EDT
>
> Parent Server Generation: 0
>
> Server uptime: 2 hours 6 minutes 3 seconds
>
> Total accesses: 1062620 - Total Traffic: 197.1 MB
>
> CPU Usage: u2966.14 s1473.45 cu0 cs0 - 58.7% CPU load
>
> 141 requests/sec - 26.7 kB/second - 194 B/request
>
> 378 requests currently being processed, 201 idle workers
>
> WW_WW_CC_WCC_.__WWWWWW_.WW__W__W___WCWWCWW_CWW_CWWCWWW_WW__C__WW
>
> W__W___.WCC____CCCWWW_WC_W_WW_C_CCWWWC__CW_W.WWWWWW_W_CW.W__WWCC
>
> WWRW_WWW_WW___WC_WW_RWW_W_W_WWW_C___WWCCC__WWWWW_W___WC_C.WWWWC_
>
> W_WWW___W__C_WWWWW_WWWWW_WW_W.WWW_WW_..___WCW___W_CWC_W_WW_WWWW.
>
> WC_WCWWCWCW_W_CC_.__.__WWC_CCCW_W_WW_W_W_WCWWWW___WWW_C__W__WWW_
>
> _CWWC_W.WCW_CWCWW_WCWCW__W_CCW._WCCW_WC__WWWWW_C_WW_WCWWW__WCCCC
>
> W_W_W_WWCWWW_WWW_WWW_CWC____..WWW_W__W_.CWC_C_WC_C_WC___WW_WWWC_
>
> _W_WW__WWW_C_WWCW__WW_W_WCW_W__CCWCCC_WWCW_..___WW_C_WWWWW_WCW_W
>
> __.__WW__W_C_CC__WCCWWWCWC_WW__W_R_WWC_W_W__WWWWWWWC_C_C_W__CRC_
>
> WWCW_C__._WW_WCWWWWWW_WW
>
> I am sad....
>
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
> *From:*Issac Goldstand [mailto:margol@beamartyr.net]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2011 2:36 PM
> *To:* users@httpd.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
>
> That your server(s) is/are swamped.
>
> Consider adding more worker threads/processes.
>
> Issac
>
> On 13/06/2011 21:23, Rob Morin wrote:
>
> If I see all the slots filled with W and C only, what would that
> indicate, this is during high traffic times..
>
> We are on Centos 64 bit with Apache 2.2, and have 6 webservers behind
> HAproxy
>
> Thanks..
>
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
--
J.
RE: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
Posted by Rob Morin <ro...@ilabsinc.com>.
My problem is as it stands, the loads are too high already, at peek times
our Dual Quad Core Xeons with 18 gigs of ram go as high as 100.00 and this
is with a max clients of 600. We do use memcache and eaccelerator.
I mean I should have been more clear. I do know what the W and C are I was
just wondering why there would only W and Cs.. sorry for the confusion
there.
When the server is at a load of 100 we still have 2 to 3 gigs of ram to
spare and there is never any swapping.
I just do not think that the problem is server capacity, it seems to be
something else I think, but not sure what?
In a top I see every couple of mins on all servers this.
22498 apache 15 0 0 0 0 Z 0.3 0.0 0:45.98 httpd <defunct>
Right now all our server are at .
top - 14:58:31 up 7 days, 3:49, 3 users, load average: 138.71, 121.10,
85.80
Tasks: 759 total, 1 running, 757 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
Cpu(s): 13.2%us, 2.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 82.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.1%hi, 1.3%si,
0.0%st
Mem: 18470312k total, 12042288k used, 6428024k free, 580252k buffers
Swap: 2096472k total, 0k used, 2096472k free, 8233784k cached
Current Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 15:00:26 EDT
Restart Time: Monday, 13-Jun-2011 12:54:23 EDT
Parent Server Generation: 0
Server uptime: 2 hours 6 minutes 3 seconds
Total accesses: 1062620 - Total Traffic: 197.1 MB
CPU Usage: u2966.14 s1473.45 cu0 cs0 - 58.7% CPU load
141 requests/sec - 26.7 kB/second - 194 B/request
378 requests currently being processed, 201 idle workers
WW_WW_CC_WCC_.__WWWWWW_.WW__W__W___WCWWCWW_CWW_CWWCWWW_WW__C__WW
W__W___.WCC____CCCWWW_WC_W_WW_C_CCWWWC__CW_W.WWWWWW_W_CW.W__WWCC
WWRW_WWW_WW___WC_WW_RWW_W_W_WWW_C___WWCCC__WWWWW_W___WC_C.WWWWC_
W_WWW___W__C_WWWWW_WWWWW_WW_W.WWW_WW_..___WCW___W_CWC_W_WW_WWWW.
WC_WCWWCWCW_W_CC_.__.__WWC_CCCW_W_WW_W_W_WCWWWW___WWW_C__W__WWW_
_CWWC_W.WCW_CWCWW_WCWCW__W_CCW._WCCW_WC__WWWWW_C_WW_WCWWW__WCCCC
W_W_W_WWCWWW_WWW_WWW_CWC____..WWW_W__W_.CWC_C_WC_C_WC___WW_WWWC_
_W_WW__WWW_C_WWCW__WW_W_WCW_W__CCWCCC_WWCW_..___WW_C_WWWWW_WCW_W
__.__WW__W_C_CC__WCCWWWCWC_WW__W_R_WWC_W_W__WWWWWWWC_C_C_W__CRC_
WWCW_C__._WW_WCWWWWWW_WW
I am sad..
Rob Morin
Systems Administrator
Infinity Labs Inc.
(514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
ilabs-email-sig
From: Issac Goldstand [mailto:margol@beamartyr.net]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:36 PM
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
That your server(s) is/are swamped.
Consider adding more worker threads/processes.
Issac
On 13/06/2011 21:23, Rob Morin wrote:
If I see all the slots filled with W and C only, what would that indicate,
this is during high traffic times..
We are on Centos 64 bit with Apache 2.2, and have 6 webservers behind
HAproxy
Thanks..
Rob Morin
Systems Administrator
Infinity Labs Inc.
(514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
ilabs-email-sig
Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
Posted by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>.
That your server(s) is/are swamped.
Consider adding more worker threads/processes.
Issac
On 13/06/2011 21:23, Rob Morin wrote:
>
> If I see all the slots filled with W and C only, what would that
> indicate, this is during high traffic times..
>
>
>
> We are on Centos 64 bit with Apache 2.2, and have 6 webservers behind
> HAproxy
>
>
>
> Thanks..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [users@httpd] General question - Apache server-status page
Posted by Jeroen Geilman <je...@adaptr.nl>.
On 06/13/2011 08:23 PM, Rob Morin wrote:
>
> If I see all the slots filled with W and C only, what would that
> indicate, this is during high traffic times..
>
As the legend at the bottom explains, W connections are sending
responses to clients.
Connections in C state are being closed.
This indicates your apache server is loaded to the maximum; consider
increasing the number of idle workers.
> We are on Centos 64 bit with Apache 2.2, and have 6 webservers behind
> HAproxy
>
> Thanks..
>
> Rob Morin
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Infinity Labs Inc.
>
> (514) 387-0638 Ext: 207
>
> ilabs-email-sig
>
--
J.