Re: alternatives to suexec in etch apache2

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 03:30:23PM -0500, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
>> then i discovered apache2-mpm-itk (last year, i think). it's what i use
>> now.
>>
>> it works just like apache2-mpm-prefork except that each virtual
>> host runs under it's own UID.
>
> How well do you find this scales (number of sites on what hardware)?  

i've never had to scale it. i don't actually work in the ISP industry
right now (although i still have a strong interest). i work at a
university dept. now, looking after their servers (only a small part of
which are the webservers, running about a dozen vhosts)....the kind of
place that thinks that 10000 hits in a day is something to be excited
about.


btw, yes, i did say "webservers". i'm using LVS load-balanced web
servers for redundancy rather than for coping with load. it used to
be set up as failover before i started work there. i thought that
having one of the web servers idle 99+% of the time was a waste, so
reconfigured it as a load-balanced setup. it also got rid of a lot of
ugly complexity (dealing with the changeover when one machine goes down
or comes back up is a lot more complex than just having it set up so
that either or both machines can be running live at any given moment).


> I've been looking at several different solutions on and off, and for
> now the Directive From Above seems to be to stick with stock Debian
> packages, suEXEC, and some FastCGI magic for PHP.

apache2-mpm-itk is a stock debian package, and PHP (4 & 5) work well
with it - both the modules (libapache2-mod-php4 or libapache2-mod-php5)
and the CGI (php4-cgi or php5-cgi).

you'll need to do your own load testing to see if it can cope with the
kind of load you expect on your servers. i can't imagine that it would
be significantly worse than plain apache2-mpm-prefork.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>

LOAD "LINUX",8,1
		-- Topic on #LinuxGER