Re: What a machine for www?

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
• Next message: Gunter: "Who can express URL syntax with BNF"
• Previous message: Rob McCool: "Re: Bizarre lag problem quelled w/ httpd1.2"
• Maybe in reply to: Marc VanHeyningen: "Re: What a machine for www?"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 08:16:33 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <199404250613.AA26435@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: rex@staff.cs.su.oz.au
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: rex@staff.cs.su.oz.au (Rex di Bona)
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: What a machine for www?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 16:55:16 +0200
> From: Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@cs.indiana.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
> Subject: Re: What a machine for www?
> Organization: Computer Science Dept, Indiana University
> 
> In article <6945@cernvm.cern.ch> you write:
> >Hi,
> >our www-machine has much traffic. Sometimes load is about 10. It is a
> >Sparc 10 with Solaris. It is also the ftp-Server.
> > [...deletia...]
> >We would take another machine, but what is the best for this mix.
> >More CPU-Power, more processors, more ... ?
> 
> My offhand guess would be fewer execs.  Forking should be dirt cheap
> 				          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> under Solaris (it does copy-on-write, doesn't it?) but CGI requires
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nope. Under Solaris forking is an increadibly expensive operation.
if you can, do NOT fork (or vfork or anything like that). Solaris
will drive people back to monolithic programs.