Re: Package search improvements
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 10:51:02AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > It's disk space against cpu usage. Clearly the first is much
> > > cheaper.
> >
> > Perhaps I should also mention the exact cause of those 500 errors that
> > was briefly mentioned on -www recently -- the MaxClients 300 setting
> > on gluck exceeds the maxproc 256 setting. Of course, this is a bug,
> > and it will be fixed, but this still means that apache on the machine
> > often runs two hundred processes as it is, so adding more CGIs/PHPs
> > wouldn't exactly be the happiest solution.
>
> Sane performance tuning strategies dictate that more stuff should be
> in-process, then. Is mod_perl feasible?
Most time is spent on swish++ searching its indices and grepping contents
files, so I don't think mod_perl would be an immediate solution... although
I if we switch from actually forking grep(1) for the contents files and then
use mod_perl, then it might be considerably beneficial.
(On a more subjective note, perhaps we should rip swish++ out and replace it
with a Perl script as well. >:|)
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: