Re: [WebDNA] v7 success story

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2012


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 107917
interpreted = N
texte = --90e6ba6e8ef84e078804b5bbe903 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Thanks! On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:24 PM, wrote: > The capacity is about the same: if you have a single website on a single > VPS or dedicated server, you will be able to handle approx the same load > with 6.2 or with 7 > WebDNA 7.0 allows you to use very fast and light webservers like lighttpd: > this webserver can handle without effort two to three times more > simultaneous hits than apache: apache is RAM hungry, usually includes a lot > of modules and the http transactions are heavier than with lighttpd for > instance. Lighttpd with WebDNA 7.0 would probably be faster than apache > with WebDNA 7.0 or 6.2. > > Another point is if you run several websites on a single box, WebDNA 6.2 > will handle all of them and if one website is buggy or takes all the > resources, then WebDNA 6.2 might slow down, hang or even crash. If it > crashes, it crashes apache too. > > If you run one WebDNA 7.0 copy per website, a buggy or hungry website will > just slow or crash its WebDNA copy. It will not crash apache, it will not > crash the other WebDNA copies. You would be able to fix the problem by just > working on the faulty website, without holding the service for your other > customers. > Also, by monitoring the CPU load (using the "top" command), you would > immediately be able to "see" what website is taking more resources than the > others, and what is the real RAM usage per website. > Finally, there is no need to restart WebDNA if it crashes: apache (or any > other webserver software) takes care of it. > I'm guessing apache is the culprit. Super old box too. I see lots of httpd instances spinning up. --90e6ba6e8ef84e078804b5bbe903 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks! =A0

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:24 P= M, <christophe.billiottet@webdna.us> wrote:
The capacity is about the same: if you have a single website on a single VP= S or dedicated server, you will be able to handle approx the same load with= 6.2 or with 7
WebDNA 7.0 allows you to use very fast and light webservers like lighttpd: = this webserver can handle without effort two to three times more simultaneo= us hits than apache: apache is RAM hungry, usually includes a lot of module= s and the http transactions are heavier than with lighttpd for instance. Li= ghttpd with WebDNA 7.0 would probably be faster than apache with WebDNA 7.0= or 6.2.

Another point is if you run several websites on a single box, WebDNA 6.2 wi= ll handle all of them and if one website is buggy or takes all the resource= s, then WebDNA 6.2 might slow down, hang or even crash. If it crashes, it c= rashes apache too.

If you run one WebDNA 7.0 copy per website, a buggy or hungry website will = just slow or crash its WebDNA copy. It will not crash apache, it will not c= rash the other WebDNA copies. You would be able to fix the problem by just = working on the faulty website, without holding the service for your other c= ustomers.
Also, by monitoring the CPU load (using the "top" command), you w= ould immediately be able to "see" what website is taking more res= ources than the others, and what is the real RAM usage per website.
Finally, there is no need to restart WebDNA if it crashes: apache (or any o= ther webserver software) takes care of it.

<= div>I'm guessing apache is the culprit. =A0Super old box too. =A0I see = lots of httpd instances spinning up. =A0=A0
--90e6ba6e8ef84e078804b5bbe903-- Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: [WebDNA] v7 success story (William DeVaul 2012)
  2. Re: [WebDNA] v7 success story (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2012)
  3. Re: [WebDNA] v7 success story (William DeVaul 2012)
  4. [WebDNA] v7 success story (Thierry Almy 2012)
--90e6ba6e8ef84e078804b5bbe903 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Thanks! On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:24 PM, wrote: > The capacity is about the same: if you have a single website on a single > VPS or dedicated server, you will be able to handle approx the same load > with 6.2 or with 7 > WebDNA 7.0 allows you to use very fast and light webservers like lighttpd: > this webserver can handle without effort two to three times more > simultaneous hits than apache: apache is RAM hungry, usually includes a lot > of modules and the http transactions are heavier than with lighttpd for > instance. Lighttpd with WebDNA 7.0 would probably be faster than apache > with WebDNA 7.0 or 6.2. > > Another point is if you run several websites on a single box, WebDNA 6.2 > will handle all of them and if one website is buggy or takes all the > resources, then WebDNA 6.2 might slow down, hang or even crash. If it > crashes, it crashes apache too. > > If you run one WebDNA 7.0 copy per website, a buggy or hungry website will > just slow or crash its WebDNA copy. It will not crash apache, it will not > crash the other WebDNA copies. You would be able to fix the problem by just > working on the faulty website, without holding the service for your other > customers. > Also, by monitoring the CPU load (using the "top" command), you would > immediately be able to "see" what website is taking more resources than the > others, and what is the real RAM usage per website. > Finally, there is no need to restart WebDNA if it crashes: apache (or any > other webserver software) takes care of it. > I'm guessing apache is the culprit. Super old box too. I see lots of httpd instances spinning up. --90e6ba6e8ef84e078804b5bbe903 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks! =A0

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:24 P= M, <christophe.billiottet@webdna.us> wrote:
The capacity is about the same: if you have a single website on a single VP= S or dedicated server, you will be able to handle approx the same load with= 6.2 or with 7
WebDNA 7.0 allows you to use very fast and light webservers like lighttpd: = this webserver can handle without effort two to three times more simultaneo= us hits than apache: apache is RAM hungry, usually includes a lot of module= s and the http transactions are heavier than with lighttpd for instance. Li= ghttpd with WebDNA 7.0 would probably be faster than apache with WebDNA 7.0= or 6.2.

Another point is if you run several websites on a single box, WebDNA 6.2 wi= ll handle all of them and if one website is buggy or takes all the resource= s, then WebDNA 6.2 might slow down, hang or even crash. If it crashes, it c= rashes apache too.

If you run one WebDNA 7.0 copy per website, a buggy or hungry website will = just slow or crash its WebDNA copy. It will not crash apache, it will not c= rash the other WebDNA copies. You would be able to fix the problem by just = working on the faulty website, without holding the service for your other c= ustomers.
Also, by monitoring the CPU load (using the "top" command), you w= ould immediately be able to "see" what website is taking more res= ources than the others, and what is the real RAM usage per website.
Finally, there is no need to restart WebDNA if it crashes: apache (or any o= ther webserver software) takes care of it.

<= div>I'm guessing apache is the culprit. =A0Super old box too. =A0I see = lots of httpd instances spinning up. =A0=A0
--90e6ba6e8ef84e078804b5bbe903-- William DeVaul

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

Max DB Size (2004) [WebDNA] thisurlplusget and webdna v8.0.2 and v8.2 (2016) syntax question, not in online refernce (1997) Never Mind - Was - Credit Card Processing (2000) WebDelivery downloads alias, not original ? (1997) math with multiple [founditems] (1999) HTTP Header info (1997) lookup command (1999) [WebDNA] v7 Stress Test and Strange Behaviour (2012) Initiating NewCart (1997) Re[3]: 2nd WebCatalog2 Feature Request (1996) [WebDNA] Listwords and newline (2011) Major Security Hole (1998) AutoCommit Preference? (1998) WebCat2.0 [format thousands .0f] no go (1997) WebCatalog 2.0 & WebDNA docs in HTML ... (1997) Multiple prices (1997) Searching (2000) ReturnRaw context (1997) web delivery (1997)