Apache::ASP with Worker MPM

I'm new to this mailing list (but not new to Apache::ASP),
and I'm 
wondering whether anyone is running Apache::ASP in
production with the 
Worker MPM on Apache 2.x.  I searched the list archives but
to no avail.

We have been running Apache::ASP for over five years, and
our site 
(www.motorsport.com) currently handles some 10M page views
per month 
with Apache::ASP and MySQL -- not the heaviest traffic on
the net, for 
sure, but quite respectable, I think.

We are still running Apache 1.3, though, and that means one
process per 
connection.  With 30 MB per process, we use up 4 GB of
physical memory 
pretty quickly with 100 or so active connections, not a
really effective 
use of memory in my opinion.

So as I build the next server, I'm interested in moving to
Apache 2.x, 
mod_perl 2.0 and Worker MPM.  But will it work?  I remember
messing 
around with mod_perl 1.9 last time around, and I recall that
I could not 
get things to work quite right.  I may have done things
wrong, or it may 
just not have been ready for prime time.


Now Apache is up to 2.2 and mod_perl 2.0 is released, and
these sound 
good.  But how well does Apache::ASP work in a multithreaded
MPM 
environment?  I see that version 2.59 is still the current
one -- is 
that a good sign that it will do all I need, or does it mean
that there 
will be no more development?

Many thanks in advance for any insight anyone can offer ...

Tom
tomhmotorsport.com

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: asp-unsubscribeperl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: asp-helpperl.apache.org

Tom Haapanen wrote:

> I'm new to this mailing list (but not new to
Apache::ASP), and I'm 
> wondering whether anyone is running Apache::ASP in
production with the 
> Worker MPM on Apache 2.x.  I searched the list archives
but to no avail.
>
> We have been running Apache::ASP for over five years,
and our site 
> (www.motorsport.com) currently handles some 10M page
views per month 
> with Apache::ASP and MySQL -- not the heaviest traffic
on the net, for 
> sure, but quite respectable, I think.
>
> We are still running Apache 1.3, though, and that means
one process 
> per connection.  With 30 MB per process, we use up 4 GB
of physical 
> memory pretty quickly with 100 or so active
connections, not a really 
> effective use of memory in my opinion.
>
> So as I build the next server, I'm interested in moving
to Apache 2.x, 
> mod_perl 2.0 and Worker MPM.  But will it work?  I
remember messing 
> around with mod_perl 1.9 last time around, and I recall
that I could 
> not get things to work quite right.  I may have done
things wrong, or 
> it may just not have been ready for prime time.
>
>
> Now Apache is up to 2.2 and mod_perl 2.0 is released,
and these sound 
> good.  But how well does Apache::ASP work in a
multithreaded MPM 
> environment?  I see that version 2.59 is still the
current one -- is 
> that a good sign that it will do all I need, or does it
mean that 
> there will be no more development?
>
> Many thanks in advance for any insight anyone can offer
...

What I have been running lately is an Apache2.2 with the
worker MPM as a  proxy, and a good-old Apache1.3 with
mod_perl+Apache::ASP as the "real" server. The
mod_perl server serves the dynamic ASP pages, while the
front servert the static content. This is a very typical
configuration IMHO.

I could once (something like two years ago?) make
Apache::ASP run with Apache 2.0, but that was a long time
ago... since then, I stick to the above config - which I
recommend to you if you do not want to waste too much time
on figuring out all the stuff about Apache2.x and mod_perl
(even though it shouldn't be too hard). 

For the record: we do somewhere around 6M-8M pageviews per
month (see http://www.kepeslap.com
at http://www.apach
e-asp.org/sites.html), which peeks to approx. 500-700k
pageviews per day in busy periods. This is a 1.8Ghz Core2
with 3G RAM, in a shared environment (with two other rather
busy sites running on the same server). CPU utilization
reaches 50% of all available CPU time, tops (I guess half of
that is coming from the ASP site).


Hope this helps.

- Fagzal



------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: asp-unsubscribeperl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: asp-helpperl.apache.org

On 2006-12-05 06:47, Fagyal Csongor wrote:
> What I have been running lately is an Apache2.2 with
the worker MPM as 
> a  proxy, and a good-old Apache1.3 with
mod_perl+Apache::ASP as the 
> "real" server. The mod_perl server serves the
dynamic ASP pages, while 
> the front servert the static content. This is a very
typical 
> configuration IMHO.
>
> I could once (something like two years ago?) make
Apache::ASP run with 
> Apache 2.0, but that was a long time ago... since then,
I stick to the 
> above config - which I recommend to you if you do not
want to waste 
> too much time on figuring out all the stuff about
Apache2.x and 
> mod_perl (even though it shouldn't be too hard).
> For the record: we do somewhere around 6M-8M pageviews
per month (see 
> http://www.kepeslap.com
at http://www.apach
e-asp.org/sites.html), 
> which peeks to approx. 500-700k pageviews per day in
busy periods. 
> This is a 1.8Ghz Core2 with 3G RAM, in a shared
environment (with two 
> other rather busy sites running on the same server).
CPU utilization 
> reaches 50% of all available CPU time, tops (I guess
half of that is 
> coming from the ASP site).

Thanks ... it sounds like your config works well for you. 
However, 
since 95% of our page views are dynamic, I'm not sure it
would gain 
much.  The only thing I can think of there is serving all
the images off 
Apache 1.3.

Our CPU load isn't too bad (dual Opteron 242 currently)
since the 
database is on a separate server, but there are still times
that the 
number of httpd processes are maxed out and the browser has
to wait for 
a connection.  So the new hardware will be dual Opteron 270s
(dual core) 
so I have no worries about CPU load -- I'd just rather run
4-6GB rather 
than 8-10GB of RAM.

But maybe the images on a separate server process are the
answer ... 
there are close to 10x as many requests for images as for
pages.  Mostly 
small GIFs but also a lot of larger JPEGs.  Need to give
this idea some 
thought as an alternative.  Thanks!

Tom

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: asp-unsubscribeperl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: asp-helpperl.apache.org

Tom Haapanen wrote:

> On 2006-12-05 06:47, Fagyal Csongor wrote:
>
>> What I have been running lately is an Apache2.2
with the worker MPM 
>> as a  proxy, and a good-old Apache1.3 with
mod_perl+Apache::ASP as 
>> the "real" server. The mod_perl server
serves the dynamic ASP pages, 
>> while the front servert the static content. This is
a very typical 
>> configuration IMHO.
>>
>> I could once (something like two years ago?) make
Apache::ASP run 
>> with Apache 2.0, but that was a long time ago...
since then, I stick 
>> to the above config - which I recommend to you if
you do not want to 
>> waste too much time on figuring out all the stuff
about Apache2.x and 
>> mod_perl (even though it shouldn't be too hard).
>> For the record: we do somewhere around 6M-8M
pageviews per month (see 
>> http://www.kepeslap.com
at http://www.apach
e-asp.org/sites.html), 
>> which peeks to approx. 500-700k pageviews per day
in busy periods. 
>> This is a 1.8Ghz Core2 with 3G RAM, in a shared
environment (with two 
>> other rather busy sites running on the same
server). CPU utilization 
>> reaches 50% of all available CPU time, tops (I
guess half of that is 
>> coming from the ASP site).
>
>
> Thanks ... it sounds like your config works well for
you.  However, 
> since 95% of our page views are dynamic, I'm not sure
it would gain 
> much.  The only thing I can think of there is serving
all the images 
> off Apache 1.3.

Usually a webpage (at least in our case) consists of the
main .asp 
(.pet, etc.) file plus the additional stuff, like .js, .css
and image 
files. The ration is usually around 1:10 (of course that can
vary a 
lot). It is a huge benefit that these hits do not hit the
heavyweight 
mod_perl server. Also, the front proxy server can have
keepalive 
switched on, runs threaded, very lightweight, only using
small memory 
footprint as compared to the huge mod_perl server.

Also keep in mind that you will end up having a lot of
mod_perl-ed 
Apache instances running unnecessarily because of
(realtively) slow 
clients, which keep your Apache waiting. Again, this is a
typicla 
reverse proxy configuration.

Before we started to use this config, we always had memory
problems, 
having 200+ Apache instances running, which is an overkill.
Now we can 
serve dynamic hits with only 30 Apache1.3 instances, while
having 
somewhere around 400 Apache2.0 available connections.

I also have another website running on a dual 2.4GHz Xeon,
in a similar 
config, with 4G RAM - that handles 2M pageviews per day
(that is over 
20M HTTP requests).
This results in 2000+ active connections at peek to the
front server, 
while we only have somewhere around 120 instances of the
backen server 
running.

> Our CPU load isn't too bad (dual Opteron 242 currently)
since the 
> database is on a separate server, but there are still
times that the 
> number of httpd processes are maxed out and the browser
has to wait 
> for a connection.  So the new hardware will be dual
Opteron 270s (dual 
> core) so I have no worries about CPU load -- I'd just
rather run 4-6GB 
> rather than 8-10GB of RAM.

Well, see above 
You can easily decrease the number of instances needed if
you make your 
incoming connections independent of the speed of the remote
client.

Just take a look at your /server-status/. Especially if you
have big 
files to serve, you will see connections lingering there.
That is what 
eats up your resources.

> But maybe the images on a separate server process are
the answer ... 
> there are close to 10x as many requests for images as
for pages.  
> Mostly small GIFs but also a lot of larger JPEGs.  Need
to give this 
> idea some thought as an alternative.  Thanks!

Even though I do not know your application, I am pretty sure
this would be a possible alternative for you.

See this:
http://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_proxy

There are many white pages and how-to-s on this subject
around. I can also give you an example httpd.conf snippet if
you are interested.

- Fagzal


------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: asp-unsubscribeperl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: asp-helpperl.apache.org

On 2006-12-05 08:15, Fagyal Csongor wrote:
> Usually a webpage (at least in our case) consists of
the main .asp 
> (.pet, etc.) file plus the additional stuff, like .js,
.css and image 
> files. The ration is usually around 1:10 (of course
that can vary a 
> lot). It is a huge benefit that these hits do not hit
the heavyweight 
> mod_perl server. Also, the front proxy server can have
keepalive 
> switched on, runs threaded, very lightweight, only
using small memory 
> footprint as compared to the huge mod_perl server.
>
> Also keep in mind that you will end up having a lot of
mod_perl-ed 
> Apache instances running unnecessarily because of
(realtively) slow 
> clients, which keep your Apache waiting. Again, this is
a typicla 
> reverse proxy configuration.
>
> Before we started to use this config, we always had
memory problems, 
> having 200+ Apache instances running, which is an
overkill. Now we can 
> serve dynamic hits with only 30 Apache1.3 instances,
while having 
> somewhere around 400 Apache2.0 available connections.
You are starting to convince me.  : ) 

Now there is some static content that I want to control
access to -- but 
I presume that I can do that in the Apache2 front end,
passing those 
requests to Apache1.3?

The 15:1 connection:Apache1.3 process ratio is certainly
very 
attractive.  How many threads per process are you running on
the Apache2 
front end?

> Even though I do not know your application, I am pretty
sure this 
> would be a possible alternative for you.
>
> See this:
> http://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_proxy
>
> There are many white pages and how-to-s on this subject
around. I can 
> also give you an example httpd.conf snippet if you are
interested.
I'll do some reading, but sample reverse proxy httpd.conf
would be much 
appreciated -- thanks.

Tom

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: asp-unsubscribeperl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: asp-helpperl.apache.org

Tom Haapanen wrote:

> On 2006-12-05 08:15, Fagyal Csongor wrote:
>
>> Usually a webpage (at least in our case) consists
of the main .asp 
>> (.pet, etc.) file plus the additional stuff, like
.js, .css and image 
>> files. The ration is usually around 1:10 (of course
that can vary a 
>> lot). It is a huge benefit that these hits do not
hit the heavyweight 
>> mod_perl server. Also, the front proxy server can
have keepalive 
>> switched on, runs threaded, very lightweight, only
using small memory 
>> footprint as compared to the huge mod_perl server.
>>
>> Also keep in mind that you will end up having a lot
of mod_perl-ed 
>> Apache instances running unnecessarily because of
(realtively) slow 
>> clients, which keep your Apache waiting. Again,
this is a typicla 
>> reverse proxy configuration.
>>
>> Before we started to use this config, we always had
memory problems, 
>> having 200+ Apache instances running, which is an
overkill. Now we 
>> can serve dynamic hits with only 30 Apache1.3
instances, while having 
>> somewhere around 400 Apache2.0 available
connections.
>
> You are starting to convince me.  : )


I hardly know anyone who did *not* have this problem 

> Now there is some static content that I want to control
access to -- 
> but I presume that I can do that in the Apache2 front
end, passing 
> those requests to Apache1.3?

If you use .htaccess, Apache2 could server as an
authenticator. If you 
server the content via Apache1, just proxy the request,
there is an 
indirect performance gain there, too.

> The 15:1 connection:Apache1.3 process ratio is
certainly very 
> attractive.  How many threads per process are you
running on the 
> Apache2 front end?

Right now this is what I have (for Apache2):

<IfModule worker.c>
StartServers         2
MaxClients         200
MinSpareThreads     25
MaxSpareThreads     75
ThreadsPerChild     25
MaxRequestsPerChild  5000
</IfModule>

And here is another one, more tweaked, higher load, lots of
requests:
<IfModule worker.c>
ServerLimit     25
StartServers         2
ThreadsPerChild    64
MaxClients         1600
ThreadLimit        100
MinSpareThreads     25
MaxSpareThreads    100
MaxRequestsPerChild  5000

SendBufferSize 32768

</IfModule>

>
>> Even though I do not know your application, I am
pretty sure this 
>> would be a possible alternative for you.
>>
>> See this:
>> http://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_proxy
>>
>> There are many white pages and how-to-s on this
subject around. I can 
>> also give you an example httpd.conf snippet if you
are interested.
>
> I'll do some reading, but sample reverse proxy
httpd.conf would be 
> much appreciated -- thanks.

The good thing is you can try this easily before you switch
to the new config.

Just set up Apache2 on a random port, like 12345, set the
proxy to the regular site, and try the site through the new
proxy-ed. If it works, you can move the backend to, say,
8080, and Apache2 to the regular 80 http port. That's
something like a 30 seconds of downtime, and all works
afterwards.

For me, httpd-13.conf is just the usual Apache::ASP config -
the server is on port 8080.
The front httpd-20.conf is something like this:


<VirtualHost www.example.com:80>
DocumentRoot ...
ServerName www.example.com
ServerAlias ...
CustomLog ...
ErrorLog ...

RewriteEngine On

RewriteCond % ^.*.asp$ [OR]
RewriteCond % ^.*/$
RewriteRule ^/(.*)$ http://%:8080/$1 [proxy]
</VirtualHost>

This is far from perfect, but it works for me.


If you use KeepAlive, set a low value, even as low as 2.


- Fagzal




------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: asp-unsubscribeperl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: asp-helpperl.apache.org

On 2006-12-05 09:38, Fagyal Csongor wrote:
> Now there is some static content that I want to control
access to -- 
> but I presume that I can do that in the Apache2 front
end, passing 
> those requests to Apache1.3?
>
> If you use .htaccess, Apache2 could server as an
authenticator. If you 
> server the content via Apache1, just proxy the request,
there is an 
> indirect performance gain there, too.

I need to do database-driven authentication so .htaccess
won't cut it, 
but I think I can just pass those requests along (I can
match by URL).

> The good thing is you can try this easily before you
switch to the new 
> config.
>
> Just set up Apache2 on a random port, like 12345, set
the proxy to the 
> regular site, and try the site through the new
proxy-ed. If it works, 
> you can move the backend to, say, 8080, and Apache2 to
the regular 80 
> http port. That's something like a 30 seconds of
downtime, and all 
> works afterwards.

Any reason why I shouldn't have Apache 1.3 listen only on
127.0.0.1?  
That way I could prevent a bypass of the reverse proxy.

Thanks for the samples ... have set up an extra IP address
for the 
reverse proxy (on the current server) for now and will do
some experiments.

Tom


------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: asp-unsubscribeperl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: asp-helpperl.apache.org