Index: [Article Count Order] [Thread]

Date:  Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:12:10 +0200
From:  Arthur Sherman <arturs (at mark) netvision.net.il>
Subject:  [coba-e:09148] Re: AW: Re: storing php sessions in memory
To:  coba-e (at mark) bluequartz.org
Message-Id:  <01cf01c765c5$0723ae10$3701a8c0@lapxp>
In-Reply-To:  <1486c6440703131118v31a6c7f1j9869f209d4b1f843 (at mark) mail.gmail.com>
X-Mail-Count: 09148

> Also remember, that much of these things are grasping at straws.
> Linux does not come configured to be slow, many of the default
> settings are balances between the various pros and cons.  If you
> really are looking to squeeze more performance, then you probably just
> want a bigger box, or more specialized hardware.  I would only expect
> minor and probably not even user noticeable improvements after a great
> deal of tuning.  It is not until you get specialized applications
> where you can really take advantage of certain tuning parameters.
> 
> -Adam

Thanks!
This is a good one.

BTW, what would be such specialized apps on BQ?
Comparing to old RaQs, BQ has slight disatvantage in performance, IMHO.
I am trying to tune once everything possible to a reasonable extent.
BQ usually has heavy load on mail, which alone provides enough disk I/O.
I thought that this trick might reduce this from apache side.
And I definitely want /tmp and /var/run be tmpfs, with noatime set!


Best,

--
Arthur Sherman

+972-52-4878851
http://www.cpt.co.il/