Search Results

Search found 41 results on 2 pages for 'eaccelerator'.

Page 2/2 | < Previous Page | 1 2 

• What would be better in my case - apache, nginx or lighttpd ?

  - by The Devil

  Hey everybody, I'm writing a php site that's expected to get about 200-300 concurrent users browsing it. When initializing the application will load about 30 php classes, some 10 maybe 15 images and a couple of css files. So my question is what else can I do (except optimizing my code and using apc/eaccelerator for php) to get as close as possible to those numbers of concurrent users ? Currently we haven't chosen a server for the site to be hosted on but most probably it'll be a VPS Dual core + 2 or maybe 4gb ram. Is it possible for such a server to handle that load ? Also how could I test it myself and be sure that it'll be able to handle it ? Thanks in advance, Me

  Read the article

• APC not recommended for production?

  - by solomongaby

  I have started having problems with my VPS in the way that it would faill to serve the pages on all the websites. It just showed a blank page, or offered to download the php file ( luckily the code was not in the download file :) ). The server was still running, but this seemed to be a problem with PHP, since i could login into WHM. If i did a apache restart, the sites would work again. After some talks with the server support they told me this is a problem with the APC extension witch they considered to be old and not recommended for production servers. So they removed it for now, to see if the same kind of fails would continue to appear. I haven't read anywhere that APC could have some problems or that its not always recommended to use, quite the contrary ... everywhere people are saying to always use it. The APC extension was installed ssh and is the latest version. Edit: They also dont recomend MemCache and say that a more reliable extension would be eAccelerator

  Read the article

• PHP Suhosin extension is not loading

  - by wintercounter

  For some reason i have to adjust the suhosin.request.max_vars and suhosin.post.max_vars directives. I'm using ispCP, and it has default the suhosin patch, but as i read, i need to install the extension too. I've did this with apt-get install php5-suhosin and the suhosin.ini appeared in conf.d, and suhosin.so exists too in /usr/lib/php5. After the Apache restart the extension isn't loading. phpinfo() says: Scan this dir for additional .ini files /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d additional .ini files parsed /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/adodb.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/curl.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/eAccelerator.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/gd.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/idn.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/imagick.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/imap.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/mcrypt.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/memcache.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/mhash.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/ming.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/mysql.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/mysqli.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/pdo.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/pdo_mysql.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/pdo_sqlite.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/ps.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/pspell.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/recode.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/snmp.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/sqlite.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/tidy.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/xmlrpc.ini, /etc/php5/cgi/conf.d/xsl.ini As you can see, it doesn't loads the suhosin.ini. What can be the problem?

  Read the article

• QNAP NAS 509 (LINUX) - how to unmout busy volume and find physical disk?

  - by Horst Walter

  On my NAS QNAP TS 509 I do have a technical issue. I need to run e2fsck. This works fine for me on md0 (see below), but how can I unmount the busy devices md9 and sda4 in order to do the same. Whenever I try, I fail because the device is busy. [This part is solved, see below] In order to further track down the issue, I'd need to sort out the physical disk to device relationship. How can I find out this, e.g. md0 is a stripped volume on 2 disk (but I need to find out on what physical disk). Remark: As you can easily derive from my questions, I am not a Linux expert, but manage to get along. /dev/ram0 124.0M 94.1M 29.8M 76% / tmpfs 32.0M 80.0k 31.9M 0% /tmp /dev/sda4 310.0M 103.9M 206.1M 34% /mnt/ext /dev/md9 509.5M 39.2M 470.2M 8% /mnt/HDA_ROOT /dev/md0 1.8T 1.4T 444.7G 76% /share/MD0_DATA tmpfs 32.0M 0 32.0M 0% /.eaccelerator.tmp -- Added -- QNAP seems to be based on Busybox. I do not find something like init / telinit / runlevel. At busybox docs it says that I need to run the below. But in /var/service sv is not available. I want to go to single user mode to unmount the devices. # cd /var/service # sv d * # sv u getty* -- Added, thanks A4L -- This QNAP Box runs a special flavor of Linux, so not all SOPs do apply. In my particular case I found a services.sh script, stopping all services. After that the drive could be unmounted. The information passed by A4L is valid and worth reading it, maybe I'll profit from it next time. Links: http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/19918/umount-device-is-busy and http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/15024/umount-device-is-busy-why So the unmount issue is solved, still looking for the best option to find the physical to volume mapping.

  Read the article

• Developing high-performance and scalable zend framework website [on hold]

  - by Daniel

  We are going to develop an ads website like http://www.gumtree.com/ (it will not be like this one but just to give you an ideea) and we are having some issues regarding performance and scalability. We are planning on using Zend Framework for this project but this is all that I'm sure off at this point. I don't think a classic approch like Zend Framework (PHP) + MySQL + Memcache + jQuery (and I would throw Doctrine 2 in there to) will fix result in a high-performance application. I was thinking on making this a RESTful application (with Zend Framework) + NGINX (or maybe MongoDB) + Memcache (or eAccelerator -- I understand this will create problems with scalability on multiple servers) + jQuery or maybe throw Backbone.js in there, a CDN for static content, a server for images and a scalable server for the requests and the rest. My questions are: - What do you think about my approch? - What solutions would you recommand for developing an high performance, scalable application expected to have a lot of traffic using PHP(Zend Framework 2)...I would be interested in your approch. I should note that I'm a Zend developer, I'm working with Zend for over 3 years, this is why I'm choosing it.

  Read the article

• Need advice in setting up server. fastCGI, suExec, speed, security, etc.

  - by lewisqic

  I am running my own dedicated server with centOS 5 and WHM/cPanel. I would like to configure my server to meet my needs but I need a little help. It will only be my own websites being run on this server. I'm still a little green when it comes to server administration so please forgive my ignorance. What I Would Like to Have: I need some public directories to be writable (for user image uploads and things like that) but I don't want those directories to have 777 permissions. I need individual accounts to have the ability to set custom php settings for their own account without affecting other accounts, whether through a php.ini file or through .htaccess or any other method. I would like things to run as fast as possible, whether that means using a php optimizer or cacher, such as eaccelerator or xcache or anything else. I need things to be as secure as possible. Here Are My Questions What should I use for my php handler? DSO? CGI? fastCGI? suPHP? Other? Should I be using suEXEC? What are the benefits or downfalls of this? What php optimizer/cacher is best to use? Are there any other security tips I need to know about all of this? I'd appreciate any advice or direction that can be offered. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Developing high-performance and scalable zend framework website

  - by Daniel

  We are going to develop an ads website like http://www.gumtree.com/ (it will not be like this one but just to give you an ideea) and we are having some issues regarding performance and scalability. We are planning on using Zend Framework for this project but this is all that I'm sure off at this point. I don't think a classic approch like Zend Framework (PHP) + MySQL + Memcache + jQuery (and I would throw Doctrine 2 in there to) will fix result in a high-performance application. I was thinking on making this a RESTful application (with Zend Framework) + NGINX (or maybe MongoDB) + Memcache (or eAccelerator -- I understand this will create problems with scalability on multiple servers) + jQuery, a CDN for static content, a server for images and a scalable server for the requests and the rest. My questions are: - What do you think about my approch? - What solutions would you recommand in terms of servers approch (MySQL, NGINX, MongoDB or pgsql) for a scalable application expected to have a lot of traffic using PHP?...I would be interested in your approch. Note: I'm a Zend Framework developer and don't have to much experience with the servers part (to determin what would be best solution for my scalable application)

  Read the article

• Faster caching method

  - by pataroulis

  I have a service that provides HTML code which at some point it is not updated anymore. The code is always generated dynamically from a database with 10 million entries so each HTML code page rendering searches there for say 60 or 70 of those entries and then renders the page. So, for those expired pages, I want to use a caching system which will be VERY simple (like just enter a record with the rendered HTML and (if I need) remove it). I tried to do it file-based but the search for the existence of a file and then passing it through php to actually render it , seems like too much for what I want to do. I was thinking of doing it on mysql with a table with MEDIUMBLOBs (each page is around 100k). It would hold about 150000 such records (for now, at least). My question is: Would it be faster to let mysql do the lookup of the file and the passing to php or is the file-based approach faster? The lookup code for the file based version looks like this: $page = @file_get_contents(getCacheFilename($pageId)); if($page!=NULL) { echo $page; } else { renderAndCachePage($pageId); } which does one lookup whether it finds the file or not. The mysql table would just have an ID (the page id) and the blob entry. The disk of the system is a simple SATA raid 1 , the mysql daemon can grab up to 2.5GB of memory (i have a proxy running too, eating the rest of the 16GB of the machine. ) In general the disk is quite busy already. My not using PEAR cache, is because I think (please feel free to correct me on this) it adds overhead I do not need because the page rendering code is called about 2M times per day and I wouldn't want to go through the whole code each time (and yes, I have eaccelerator to cache the code too). Any pointer to what direction I should go, would be greatly welcome. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Optimizing PHP require_once's for low disk i/o?

  - by buggedcom

  Q1) I'm designing a CMS (-who isn't!) but priority is being given to caching. Literally everything is cached. DB rows, DB id queries, Configuration data, processed data, compiled templates. Currently it has two layers of caching. The first is a opcode cache or memory cache such as apc, eaccelerator, xcache or memcached. If an entry is not found in there it is then searched for in the secondary slow cache, ie php includes. Are the opcode caches actually faster than doing a require_once to a php file with a var_export'd array of data in it? My tests are inconclusive as my development box (5.3 of XAMPP) keeps throwing errors installing any of the aforementioned programs. Q2) The CMS has numerous helper classes that are autoloaded on demand instead of loading all files. Mostly each has a require before it so no autoloading needs to take place, however this is not the question. Because a page script can have up to 50/60 helper files included I have a feeling that if the site was under pressure it would buckle because of all the i/o that this incurs. Ignore for the moment that there is output cache in place that would remove the need for what I am about to suggest, and also that opcode caches would render this moot. What I have tried to do is join all the helper files required for the scripts execution in one single file. This is achievable and works well, however it has a side effect of greatly increasing the memory usage dramatically even though technically the same code is being used. What are your thoughts and opinions on this?

  Read the article

• Combining cache methods - memcache/disk based

  - by Industrial

  Hi! Here's the deal. We would have taken the complete static html road to solve performance issues, but since the site will be partially dynamic, this won't work out for us. What we have thought of instead is using memcache + eAccelerator to speed up PHP and take care of caching for the most used data. Here's our two approaches that we have thought of right now: Using memcache on all<< major queries and leaving it alone to do what it does best. Usinc memcache for most commonly retrieved data, and combining with a standard harddrive-stored cache for further usage. The major advantage of only using memcache is of course the performance, but as users increases, the memory usage gets heavy. Combining the two sounds like a more natural approach to us, even though the theoretical compromize in performance. Memcached appears to have some replication features available as well, which may come handy when it's time to increase the nodes. What approach should we use? - Is it stupid to compromize and combine the two methods? Should we insted be focusing on utilizing memcache and instead focusing on upgrading the memory as the load increases with the number of users? Thanks a lot!

  Read the article

• Using memory-based cache together with conventional cache

  - by Industrial

  Hi! Here's the deal. We would have taken the complete static html road to solve performance issues, but since the site will be partially dynamic, this won't work out for us. What we have thought of instead is using memcache + eAccelerator to speed up PHP and take care of caching for the most used data. Here's our two approaches that we have thought of right now: Using memcache on all<< major queries and leaving it alone to do what it does best. Usinc memcache for most commonly retrieved data, and combining with a standard harddrive-stored cache for further usage. The major advantage of only using memcache is of course the performance, but as users increases, the memory usage gets heavy. Combining the two sounds like a more natural approach to us, even though the theoretical compromize in performance. Memcached appears to have some replication features available as well, which may come handy when it's time to increase the nodes. What approach should we use? - Is it stupid to compromize and combine the two methods? Should we insted be focusing on utilizing memcache and instead focusing on upgrading the memory as the load increases with the number of users? Thanks a lot!

  Read the article

• Using memcache together with conventional cache

  - by Industrial

  Hi! Here's the deal. We would have taken the complete static html road to solve performance issues, but since the site will be partially dynamic, this won't work out for us. What we have thought of instead is using memcache + eAccelerator to speed up PHP and take care of caching for the most used data. Here's our two approaches that we have thought of right now: Using memcache on all<< major queries and leaving it alone to do what it does best. Usinc memcache for most commonly retrieved data, and combining with a standard harddrive-stored cache for further usage. The major advantage of only using memcache is of course the performance, but as users increases, the memory usage gets heavy. Combining the two sounds like a more natural approach to us, even though the theoretical compromize in performance. Memcached appears to have some replication features available as well, which may come handy when it's time to increase the nodes. What approach should we use? - Is it stupid to compromize and combine the two methods? Should we insted be focusing on utilizing memcache and instead focusing on upgrading the memory as the load increases with the number of users? Thanks a lot!

  Read the article

• APC PHP cache size does not exceed 32MB, even though settings allow for more

  - by hardy101

  I am setting up APC (v 3.1.9) on a high-traffic WordPress installation on CentOS 6.0 64 bit. I have figured out many of the quirks with APC, but something is still not quite right. No matter what settings I change, APC never actually caches more than 32MB. I'm trying to bump it up to 256 MB. 32MB is a default amount for apc.shm_size, so I am wondering if it's stuck there somehow. I have run the following echo '2147483648' > /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax to increase my system's shared memory to 2G (half of my 4G box). Then ran ipcs -lm which returns ------ Shared Memory Limits -------- max number of segments = 4096 max seg size (kbytes) = 2097152 max total shared memory (kbytes) = 8388608 min seg size (bytes) = 1 Also made a change in /etc/sysctl.conf then ran sysctl -p to make the settings stick on the server. Rebooted, too, for good measure. In my APC settings, I have mmap enabled (which happens by default in recent versions of APC). php.ini looks like: apc.stat=0 apc.shm_size="256M" apc.max_file_size="10M" apc.mmap_file_mask="/tmp/apc.XXXXXX" apc.ttl="7200" I am aware that mmap mode will ignore references to apc.shm_segments, so I have left it out with default 1. phpinfo() indicates the following about APC: Version 3.1.9 APC Debugging Disabled MMAP Support Enabled MMAP File Mask /tmp/apc.bPS7rB Locking type pthread mutex Locks Serialization Support php Revision $Revision: 308812 $ Build Date Oct 11 2011 22:55:02 Directive Local Value apc.cache_by_default On apc.canonicalize O apc.coredump_unmap Off apc.enable_cli Off apc.enabled On On apc.file_md5 Off apc.file_update_protection 2 apc.filters no value apc.gc_ttl 3600 apc.include_once_override Off apc.lazy_classes Off apc.lazy_functions Off apc.max_file_size 10M apc.mmap_file_mask /tmp/apc.bPS7rB apc.num_files_hint 1000 apc.preload_path no value apc.report_autofilter Off apc.rfc1867 Off apc.rfc1867_freq 0 apc.rfc1867_name APC_UPLOAD_PROGRESS apc.rfc1867_prefix upload_ apc.rfc1867_ttl 3600 apc.serializer default apc.shm_segments 1 apc.shm_size 256M apc.slam_defense On apc.stat Off apc.stat_ctime Off apc.ttl 7200 apc.use_request_time On apc.user_entries_hint 4096 apc.user_ttl 0 apc.write_lock On apc.php reveals the following graph, no matter how long the server runs (cache size fluctuates and hovers at just under 32MB. See image http://i.stack.imgur.com/2bwMa.png You can see that the cache is trying to allocate 256MB, but the brown piece of the pie keeps getting recycled at 32MB. This is confirmed as refreshing the apc.php page shows cached file counts that move up and down (implying that the cache is not holding onto all of its files). Does anyone have an idea of how to get APC to use more than 32 MB for its cache size?? **Note that the identical behavior occurs for eaccelerator, xcache, and APC. I read here: http://www.litespeedtech.com/support/forum/archive/index.php/t-5072.html that suEXEC could cause this problem.

  Read the article

• What Apache/PHP configurations do you know and how good are they?

  - by FractalizeR

  Hello. I wanted to ask you about PHP/Apache configuration methods you know, their pros and cons. I will start myself: ---------------- PHP as Apache module---------------- Pros: good speed since you don't need to start exe every time especially in mpm-worker mode. You can also use various PHP accelerators in this mode like APC or eAccelerator. Cons: if you are running apache in mpm-worker mode, you may face stability issues because every glitch in any php script will lead to unstability to the whole thread pool of that apache process. Also in this mode all scripts are executed on behalf of apache user. This is bad for security. mpm-worker configuration requires PHP compiled in thread-safe mode. At least CentOS and RedHat default repositories doesn't have thread-safe PHP version so on these OSes you need to compile at least PHP yourself (there is a way to activate worker mpm on Apache). The use of thread-safe PHP binaries is considered experimental and unstable. Plus, many PHP extensions does not support thread-safe mode or were not well-tested in thread-safe mode. ---------------- PHP as CGI ---------------- This seems to be the slowest default configuration which seems to be a "con" itself ;) ---------------- PHP as CGI via mod_suphp ---------------- Pros: suphp allows you to execute php scipts on behalf of the script file owner. This way you can securely separate different sites on the same machine. Also, suphp allows to use different php.ini files per virtual host. Cons: PHP in CGI mode means less performance. In this mode you can't use php accelerators like APC because each time new process is spawned to handle script rendering the cache of previous process useless. BTW, do you know the way to apply some accelerator in this config? I heard something about using shm for php bytecode cache. Also, you cannot configure PHP via .htaccess files in this mode. You will need to install PECL htscanner for this if you need to set various per-script options via .htaccess (php_value / php_flag directives) ---------------- PHP as CGI via suexec ---------------- This configuration looks the same as with suphp, but I heard, that it's slower and less safe. Almost same pros and cons apply. ---------------- PHP as FastCGI ---------------- Pros: FastCGI standard allows single php process to handle several scripts before php process is killed. This way you gain performance since no need to spin up new php process for each script. You can also use PHP accelerators in this configuration (see cons section for comment). Also, FCGI almost like suphp also allows php processes to be executed on behalf of some user. mod_fcgid seems to have the most complete fcgi support and flexibility for apache. Cons: The use of php accelerator in fastcgi mode will lead to high memory consumption because each PHP process will have his own bytecode cache (unless there is some accelerator that can use shared memory for bytecode cache. Is there such?). FastCGI is also a little bit complex to configure. You need to create various configuration files and make some configuration modifications. It seems, that fastcgi is the most stable, secure, fast and flexible PHP configuration, however, a bit difficult to be configured. But, may be, I missed something? Comments are welcome!

  Read the article

• CPU Utilization LAMP stack

  - by Max

  We've got an ec2 m2.4xlarge running Magento (centos 5.6, httpd 2.2, php 5.2.17 with eaccelerator 0.9.5.3, mysql 5.1.52). Right now we're getting a large traffic spike, and our top looks like this: top - 09:41:29 up 31 days, 1:12, 1 user, load average: 120.01, 129.03, 113.23 Tasks: 1190 total, 18 running, 1172 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 97.3%us, 1.8%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.5%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.4%st Mem: 71687720k total, 36898928k used, 34788792k free, 49692k buffers Swap: 880737784k total, 0k used, 880737784k free, 1586524k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 2433 mysql 15 0 23.6g 4.5g 7112 S 564.7 6.6 33607:34 mysqld 24046 apache 16 0 411m 65m 28m S 26.4 0.1 0:09.05 httpd 24360 apache 15 0 410m 60m 25m S 26.4 0.1 0:03.65 httpd 24993 apache 16 0 410m 57m 21m S 26.1 0.1 0:01.41 httpd 24838 apache 16 0 428m 74m 20m S 24.8 0.1 0:02.37 httpd 24359 apache 16 0 411m 62m 26m R 22.3 0.1 0:08.12 httpd 23850 apache 15 0 411m 64m 27m S 16.8 0.1 0:14.54 httpd 25229 apache 16 0 404m 46m 17m R 10.2 0.1 0:00.71 httpd 14594 apache 15 0 404m 63m 34m S 8.4 0.1 1:10.26 httpd 24955 apache 16 0 404m 50m 21m R 8.4 0.1 0:01.66 httpd 24313 apache 16 0 399m 46m 22m R 8.1 0.1 0:02.30 httpd 25119 apache 16 0 411m 59m 23m S 6.8 0.1 0:01.45 httpd Questions: Would giving msyqld more memory help it cache queries and react faster? If so, how? Other than splitting mysql and php to separate servers (which we're about to do) is there anything else we could/should be doing? Thanks! UPDATE: Here's our my.cnf along with the output of mysqltuner. It looks like a cache problem. Thanks again! # cat /etc/my.cnf [client] port = **** socket = /var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock [mysqld] datadir=/mnt/persistent/mysql port=**** socket=/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock key_buffer = 512M max_allowed_packet = 64M table_cache = 1024 sort_buffer_size = 8M read_buffer_size = 4M read_rnd_buffer_size = 2M myisam_sort_buffer_size = 64M thread_cache_size = 128M tmp_table_size = 128M join_buffer_size = 1M query_cache_limit = 2M query_cache_size= 64M query_cache_type = 1 max_connections = 1000 thread_stack = 128K thread_concurrency = 48 log-bin=mysql-bin server-id = 1 wait_timeout = 300 innodb_data_home_dir = /mnt/persistent/mysql/ innodb_data_file_path = ibdata1:10M:autoextend innodb_buffer_pool_size = 20G innodb_additional_mem_pool_size = 20M innodb_log_file_size = 64M innodb_log_buffer_size = 8M innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit = 1 innodb_lock_wait_timeout = 50 innodb_thread_concurrency = 48 ft_min_word_len=3 [myisamchk] ft_min_word_len=3 key_buffer = 128M sort_buffer_size = 128M read_buffer = 2M write_buffer = 2M # ./mysqltuner.pl >> MySQLTuner 1.2.0 - Major Hayden <[email protected]> >> Bug reports, feature requests, and downloads at http://mysqltuner.com/ >> Run with '--help' for additional options and output filtering -------- General Statistics -------------------------------------------------- [--] Skipped version check for MySQLTuner script [OK] Currently running supported MySQL version 5.1.52-log [OK] Operating on 64-bit architecture -------- Storage Engine Statistics ------------------------------------------- [--] Status: +Archive -BDB +Federated +InnoDB -ISAM -NDBCluster [--] Data in MyISAM tables: 2G (Tables: 26) [--] Data in InnoDB tables: 749M (Tables: 250) [!!] Total fragmented tables: 262 -------- Security Recommendations ------------------------------------------- -------- Performance Metrics ------------------------------------------------- [--] Up for: 31d 2h 30m 38s (680M q [253.371 qps], 2M conn, TX: 4825B, RX: 236B) [--] Reads / Writes: 89% / 11% [--] Total buffers: 20.6G global + 15.1M per thread (1000 max threads) [OK] Maximum possible memory usage: 35.4G (51% of installed RAM) [OK] Slow queries: 0% (35K/680M) [OK] Highest usage of available connections: 53% (537/1000) [OK] Key buffer size / total MyISAM indexes: 512.0M/457.2M [OK] Key buffer hit rate: 100.0% (9B cached / 264K reads) [OK] Query cache efficiency: 42.3% (260M cached / 615M selects) [!!] Query cache prunes per day: 4384652 [OK] Sorts requiring temporary tables: 0% (1K temp sorts / 38M sorts) [!!] Joins performed without indexes: 100404 [OK] Temporary tables created on disk: 17% (7M on disk / 45M total) [OK] Thread cache hit rate: 99% (537 created / 2M connections) [!!] Table cache hit rate: 0% (1K open / 946K opened) [OK] Open file limit used: 9% (453/5K) [OK] Table locks acquired immediately: 99% (758M immediate / 758M locks) [OK] InnoDB data size / buffer pool: 749.3M/20.0G -------- Recommendations ----------------------------------------------------- General recommendations: Run OPTIMIZE TABLE to defragment tables for better performance Enable the slow query log to troubleshoot bad queries Adjust your join queries to always utilize indexes Increase table_cache gradually to avoid file descriptor limits Variables to adjust: query_cache_size (> 64M) join_buffer_size (> 1.0M, or always use indexes with joins) table_cache (> 1024)

  Read the article

• Server HTTP Load times slow?

  - by cdog5000

  Hello, My server @ codemeh.com (HTTP Server) seems to be randomly loading slowly, I cannot tell if it just my forums (http://www.codemeh.com/forums/) that are loading slowly or if the WHOLE site is just loading slowly since my forums are the largest thing on the site right now. load average: 0.02, 0.17, 0.20 That is super low to my knowledge. I have tried Google Page Analytic plug-in for FireFox to solve the problem but nothing comes up that is VERY bad. If someone could investigate this for me since I am very new at apache and server configurations. Thanks! (top): PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 7493 www-data 15 0 98.2m 16m 9092 S 3 0.8 0:27.24 apache2 26429 www-data 15 0 98.2m 15m 7392 S 3 0.7 0:03.45 apache2 26477 www-data 17 0 98.2m 15m 7396 S 3 0.7 0:03.16 apache2 1 root 15 0 2468 1384 1156 S 0 0.1 0:00.49 init 1367 root 25 0 2564 816 660 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 xinetd 1526 root 15 0 29576 5420 1976 S 0 0.3 1:02.69 fail2ban-server 3703 root 15 0 13512 9312 1696 S 0 0.4 0:11.59 miniserv.pl 3915 postfix 15 0 6056 1652 1320 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 pickup 4010 root 15 0 4548 1296 972 S 0 0.1 0:37.36 ntpd 7448 root 15 0 98528 26m 20m S 0 1.3 0:00.27 apache2 7454 www-data 18 0 33580 2616 368 S 0 0.1 0:00.04 apache2 7528 www-data 18 0 108m 24m 15m S 0 1.2 0:27.60 apache2 7974 root 16 0 8700 2728 2164 S 0 0.1 0:00.08 sshd 8123 cdog5000 15 0 8832 1596 896 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 sshd 8126 cdog5000 18 0 4484 1716 1384 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 bash 8141 cdog5000 15 0 2344 980 796 R 0 0.0 0:00.11 top 13461 root 15 0 8700 2728 2164 S 0 0.1 0:00.07 sshd 13567 cdog5000 18 0 8832 1492 896 S 0 0.1 0:00.33 sshd 13569 cdog5000 18 0 4484 1728 1388 S 0 0.1 0:00.09 bash 17983 root 15 0 4392 1268 988 S 0 0.1 0:00.00 su 17987 root 15 0 4516 1752 1380 S 0 0.1 0:00.09 bash 18081 www-data 15 0 98.2m 14m 6588 S 0 0.7 0:04.91 apache2 20000 www-data 15 0 98.3m 15m 8040 S 0 0.8 0:02.45 apache2 20019 www-data 15 0 98.2m 14m 6808 S 0 0.7 0:04.97 apache2 30343 root 15 0 3964 1012 764 S 0 0.0 0:00.03 vsftpd 30382 root 15 0 2304 908 716 S 0 0.0 0:00.62 cron 30401 mysql 17 0 141m 17m 5416 S 0 0.9 1:02.20 mysqld 30424 root 15 0 5472 912 504 S 0 0.0 0:00.04 sshd 30473 syslog 15 0 1916 676 536 S 0 0.0 0:01.02 syslogd 30611 amavis 15 0 33872 25m 2292 S 0 1.2 0:03.11 amavisd-new 31890 amavis 18 0 34888 24m 1792 S 0 1.2 0:00.00 amavisd-new 31891 amavis 18 0 34888 24m 1784 S 0 1.2 0:00.00 amavisd-new 32397 clamav 18 0 104m 84m 1272 S 0 4.1 1:06.46 clamd 32563 clamav 15 0 12832 5716 4440 S 0 0.3 0:01.29 freshclam 32573 root 23 0 1892 456 372 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 courierlogger 32575 root 18 0 2096 684 544 S 0 0.0 0:00.01 authdaemond 32583 root 23 0 1892 360 284 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 courierlogger 32584 root 24 0 2000 612 516 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 couriertcpd 32598 root 23 0 1892 360 284 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 courierlogger 32599 root 25 0 2000 612 516 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 couriertcpd 32604 root 18 0 1892 460 372 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 courierlogger 32605 root 18 0 2000 624 532 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 couriertcpd 32607 root 18 0 2308 404 256 S 0 0.0 0:00.02 authdaemond 32608 root 18 0 2096 260 116 S 0 0.0 0:00.03 authdaemond 32609 root 15 0 2308 404 256 S 0 0.0 0:00.03 authdaemond 32610 root 18 0 2096 260 116 S 0 0.0 0:00.02 authdaemond 32612 root 18 0 2308 404 256 S 0 0.0 0:00.02 authdaemond 32621 root 24 0 1892 364 284 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 courierlogger 32622 root 25 0 2000 608 516 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 couriertcpd 32633 root 15 0 105m 936 716 S 0 0.0 0:02.26 nscd 32719 root 16 0 6252 1680 1344 S 0 0.1 0:01.24 master 32738 postfix 15 0 6188 1776 1400 S 0 0.1 0:00.44 qmgr 32758 postfix 15 0 6492 2564 1788 S 0 0.1 0:00.14 tlsmgr (/etc/apache2/sites-available/default): NameVirtualHost * <VirtualHost *> ServerAdmin webmaster@localhost DocumentRoot /var/www/web1/web/ <Directory /var/www/web1/web/> Options Indexes MultiViews AllowOverride None Order allow,deny allow from all </Directory> </VirtualHost> I have fail2ban server and I dont have any firewall at this point and time that I know of. SMF is 2.0 RC4 and apache version is 2.2.14. I run a MySQL server on another box in the same DC (Persistent Connection). I installed eAccelerator today and it didnt help.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2