Apache can't handle 500 request at a time?
-
I analyzed every book ever mentioned on Stack Overflow. Here are the most popular ones.[^] At the bottom of the post, he writes: Right after I published {his website.com} I had a huge crowd checking out my web site. Apache couldn’t serve for more than 500 visitors at the same time, so I quickly set up Nginx and switched to it on the way. I was really surprised when real-time visitors shot up to 800 at same time. I'm just thinking. Ability to handle concurrent clients- Doesn't it depend on the server hardware config & OS capabilities to the most part? Why should Apache "have" a limitation of 500+ requests. I'm not sure I could be influenced by the Scale-up/out things of the cloud that we do today. But just 500 requests limitation for a well reputed server like Apache sounds wrong. May be he chose a mid-end h/w config for Apache.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
-
I analyzed every book ever mentioned on Stack Overflow. Here are the most popular ones.[^] At the bottom of the post, he writes: Right after I published {his website.com} I had a huge crowd checking out my web site. Apache couldn’t serve for more than 500 visitors at the same time, so I quickly set up Nginx and switched to it on the way. I was really surprised when real-time visitors shot up to 800 at same time. I'm just thinking. Ability to handle concurrent clients- Doesn't it depend on the server hardware config & OS capabilities to the most part? Why should Apache "have" a limitation of 500+ requests. I'm not sure I could be influenced by the Scale-up/out things of the cloud that we do today. But just 500 requests limitation for a well reputed server like Apache sounds wrong. May be he chose a mid-end h/w config for Apache.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
500 concurrent users and 500 concurrent requests are two different things.
You have just been Sharapova'd.
-
I analyzed every book ever mentioned on Stack Overflow. Here are the most popular ones.[^] At the bottom of the post, he writes: Right after I published {his website.com} I had a huge crowd checking out my web site. Apache couldn’t serve for more than 500 visitors at the same time, so I quickly set up Nginx and switched to it on the way. I was really surprised when real-time visitors shot up to 800 at same time. I'm just thinking. Ability to handle concurrent clients- Doesn't it depend on the server hardware config & OS capabilities to the most part? Why should Apache "have" a limitation of 500+ requests. I'm not sure I could be influenced by the Scale-up/out things of the cloud that we do today. But just 500 requests limitation for a well reputed server like Apache sounds wrong. May be he chose a mid-end h/w config for Apache.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
It sounds, that the books analyzed has nothing about Apache configuration... How to optimize apache web server for maximum concurrent connections or increase max clients in apache - Wiki[^] The conclusion is Apache can be configured to accept any number, but the real performance/amount depends on the hardware (RAM/CPU).
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
-
I analyzed every book ever mentioned on Stack Overflow. Here are the most popular ones.[^] At the bottom of the post, he writes: Right after I published {his website.com} I had a huge crowd checking out my web site. Apache couldn’t serve for more than 500 visitors at the same time, so I quickly set up Nginx and switched to it on the way. I was really surprised when real-time visitors shot up to 800 at same time. I'm just thinking. Ability to handle concurrent clients- Doesn't it depend on the server hardware config & OS capabilities to the most part? Why should Apache "have" a limitation of 500+ requests. I'm not sure I could be influenced by the Scale-up/out things of the cloud that we do today. But just 500 requests limitation for a well reputed server like Apache sounds wrong. May be he chose a mid-end h/w config for Apache.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
It's likely because that Nginx is event based (epoll) and Apache is mainly thread based. The former can utilize the hardware more efficiently than the later in IO heavy applications ...
Find more in 1-NET: connects your resources anywhere[^]. Email searcher Email Aggregation Manager[^].
-
I analyzed every book ever mentioned on Stack Overflow. Here are the most popular ones.[^] At the bottom of the post, he writes: Right after I published {his website.com} I had a huge crowd checking out my web site. Apache couldn’t serve for more than 500 visitors at the same time, so I quickly set up Nginx and switched to it on the way. I was really surprised when real-time visitors shot up to 800 at same time. I'm just thinking. Ability to handle concurrent clients- Doesn't it depend on the server hardware config & OS capabilities to the most part? Why should Apache "have" a limitation of 500+ requests. I'm not sure I could be influenced by the Scale-up/out things of the cloud that we do today. But just 500 requests limitation for a well reputed server like Apache sounds wrong. May be he chose a mid-end h/w config for Apache.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
