Apache :: CentOS - Measuring Performance Of Server
Feb 25, 2015
I have centos -7 and apache 2.4.6. I have made one small php scripts and measuring the performance of server.
Average time is around 15 ms for per request. But when adding concurrent requests the average time increase too much high for the request see the below output
ab -n 10000 http://127.0.0.1/1.php
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 0 0.0 0 0
Processing: 14 17 2.6 15 35
Waiting: 0 1 0.2 1 10
Total: 14 17 2.6 15 35
With Concurrent connections
ab -n 1000 -c 100 http://127.0.0.1/1.php See the processing the mean request time its around 150 ms.
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 0 1.1 0 5
Processing: 25 150 24.7 153 213
Waiting: 2 134 25.2 138 194
Total: 29 150 24.1 153 216
ab -n 1000 -c 100 http://127.0.0.1/1.php See the processing the mean request time its around 150 ms when total request is 1000 only.
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 0 1.1 0 5
Processing: 25 150 24.7 153 213
Waiting: 2 134 25.2 138 194
Total: 29 150 24.1 153 216
How to configure the Apache so the request time decreas to low ms ???
In Centos -7 Default configuration of MPM Directory also not found ??? checked in httpd.conf and other file also.
my server load is max 1,it wont cross more than 1 but for 2 days iam getting 20 or more,but this load is extents for 1 or 2 min only after that it become normal to 0.58 around 1,in top i can able to see lotz apachi process when the load increase,
I'm building a new server for a predominantly php5/mysql5 website and was wondering which version of apache to put on. I know there are some issues with PHP and Apache in MPM, but what's the performance comparison between Apache 1.3 and Apache 2 Prefork?
We are taking out a quarter cabinet with 2.5amps from a colo company in the UK. I am just trying to figure out our expected usage figures for a few servers we are looking at putting in there. I'm not an electrician and i am struggling with all this amps, watts and volts stuff!
We are looking at running the following setup: 2 x PE2950 III with 1 Quad-Core Xeon E5410 8gb RAM 2 x146GB SAS (15.000 rpm) 3.5-inch Hard Drive 2 S 4 x 73GB SAS (15,000rpm) 3.5 inch Hard Drive 4 S in each server
2 x PE1950 III with 2 x Quad-Core Xeon CPUs X5450 3.0GHz/2x6MB 1333FSB 8GB 677MHz FBD (4x2GB dual rank DIMMs) 1 S 4 x 73GB SAS (10,000rpm) 2.5in Hard Drive in each server
if we will be able to run the above setup with 2.5amps?
I have DirectAdmin on my server but my customers have no need for it. My customers have no need to create databases, new email accounts, new users etc. etc. so I don't see the advantage of having this on my server.
Is not having Directadmin worth the extra performance and administrative chores?
Is there any way to measure and limit bandwidth on a shared hosting server without using a control panel?
How much resources does DirectAdmin use?
I heard it is not as much as CPanel but doesn't it slow down the server a little?
what modules I should use in my httpd.conf file. Here's the modules that I currently have enabled / disabled. The site is running specifically off PHP. There is no need for CGI, ASP, or any other languages (to my knowledge). The negotiation module is enabled,. It does not need to be to my knowledge.
However, when I disabled it Apache would not restart. Could someone give some details as to which directives need to be disabled for negotiation to be disabled. Also, does anyone know if negotiation is essential. It is not to my knowledge. Suggestions and comments are much appreciated. Thank you in advance for your hard work and experience being as it's not costing me anything. I will do my best to return the favor.
a tool that can measure how much packet loss we are having on a given server by looking at the packets being sent from it. I.e, something than looks at all TCP/80 connections and measures how many packets and bytes are being retransmitted vs actual packets and bytes sent.
This documents explains it:
[url]
We need this to measure network performance of different hosts where we have dedicated servers. This would be a good way of measuring performance with the actual data of our users.
Does anyone know of such tool? I.e, something that can say
2532 packets/second - 132 retransmits/second (4.8%) 25.43Mbps/sec total traffic - 24.84 Mbps/sec actual data sent - 0.59Mbps retransmits
Even better if it can then break it out on IP prefixes. like
I am using dreamhost host 3 of my web sites and 1 blog. Dreamhost is great, offers alot space and bandwidth.
but I think they are oversellling their space, sometimes it gets really slow. (overselling ? ok, I dont really know, but sometimes its really slow, and most my asian readers said need to refresh to load the page. I am wondering if theres a way to check if they are overselling or not.)
I am thinking about buying vps, even tho, I still got 5 month left with dreamhost.
I found 2 vps companies are highly recommanded on this forum, JaguarPC and LiquidWeb.
theres already a post compared both companies in terms of price and service. I say I will pick JagarPc, cuz, its basic plan just 20 USD, and htey got promotion now, its even cheaper. and basic Liquidweb vps plan is 60 bucks.
I am wondering why Jagarpc is so cheap , are they overselling? how can we check if they are overselling.
I found a few posts saying how good jaguarPc is. and they are not overselling, but those members just signed up this month, and only have 1-3 posts. I cannot really trust those new members.
Can someone share their experience with JaguarPC? compare JaguarPc performance and liquidweb performance. antoher question is switch from dreamhost to JaguarPC basic vPS plan, will performance gets better?
last question: VPS account allows 3 IP, 3ip = 3 domains? if not, how many domains can I have?
We are getting into VPS hosting and wanted to get some opinions and feedback as we're quite unsure on what to expect as for performance and how many clients we can generally keep on a box.
For now we've bought 3 dell R710 with dual Xeon L5520, 72GB ram and 8 x 2.5" SAS drives.
We are thinking of a base offering of 512 megabytes of ram and was hoping to get about 40-50 onto a server.
With 40 there should be -plenty- free ram and plenty drivecache.
Then a next offering of 1 gig ram and next one of 2 gigs.
Even if we do the biggest 2 gig offering with 25 on a server we should have free ram to spare.
The software would be virtuozzo.
Any thoughts on this, am I expecting too much, or am I being fairly realistic?
Hi"Optimization of computing resources has long been an important management issue. One of its aspects concerns server scalability and the question of whether an organization should scale-up or scale out.Assume that the computing performance of the servers can be measured by variable 0 <=p, that their total cost is given by "c" and the relationship between server performance and cost is defined by c=αp^β"
a. What is the cost-performance elasticity(ђ), precisely?
b. What would be the range of values for ђ that would be expected by moore's law and what are its implications?
c. What would be the range of values for ђ that would lead managers to scale-out? Draw a graph and throughly explain the implications.
We are a web-based Yacht Charter company, with offices scattered around the world: www.boatbookings.com
Currently, both our web site and our back-office business management system are hosted on a single server in the UK, with an automatic fail-over to a server in Dallas, TX, USA.
The problem we are having is that our sales office in Singapore is having really slow response times and this is very frustrating for them.
Using an application called "JustPing" we see that response times From Singapore are much slower than other parts of the world. (the cities closer to London are fastest, the ones further away are slowest) JustPing Results
Is there anyway to improve this or is hosting our applications on multiple servers the only way to improve performance. What's the best cost-effective method of multiple server hosting?
(Incidentally, if I JutPing Google, response times are fantastic worldwide, but we know they're hosted on many, very large servers)
I was just playing around with litespeed and I thought I would switch back to apache for a few min to see how the server reacts. The load with litespeed was 1.00 - 3.00. I switched to apache the load jumped to 28.00 - 35.00. Its amazing how litespeed is handling connections.
Is there a site which will enable me to enter url of my website and it will simulate visitors from multiple locations. It needs to open the page completely, and run for example 10 minutes. Two things I found are host-tracker, but it just gets headers from multiple locations, and does it only once. Another thing is Paessler software which can test exactly what I want (number of visitors for some period of time with full page download) but it must be run from one (my) PC, so I can not test bandwidth from multiple locations. I need combination of these two, anyone knows for something like that on the net?
My dedicated server is sometimes sluggishly slow. I would like to get a grasp of its performance during a day, to get a better understanding of what's going on.
Therefore I am looking for a server performance monitoring service. All service I found so far were simply monitoring uptime (server is down / server is up). I need something more - a service that checks every 30 seconds or so the loading time of the main page.
Then it would allow me to download the data in CSV or draw a response time graph.
I've recently found (last 6 weeks) that the performance of my client's websites on my trusted host's servers isn't how it used to be and/or how it should be. The download seems to take way much longer than before. So far it hasn't resulted in a significant drop in average pageviews per unique visitor but it might do if things continue. The host claims a number of attacks on the mailserver and an unusually high load at one point in time. Above all it's just annoying - isn't reliable server performance what can be expected from a reputable host?
Here's the question: what's the best way of monitoring online how the web and mail servers are performing so that I can take this report to my host and urge them to take (more) action? Ideally I'd like to compare this with a seperate web server that I use for another client. I don't mind spending a little bit of money but high subscription fees are not in my budget.
i installed httpd from yum and all ok.When i check my site via acunetix vulnerability scanner says Apache version older than 2.2.8.So it is vulnerable.
I must upgrade httpd to newer version but i cant.
Yum update says that httpd 2.2.3 is latest but ITS NOT.
[mysqld] datadir=/var/lib/mysql socket=/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock # Default to using old password format for compatibility with mysql 3.x # clients (those using the mysqlclient10 compatibility package). old_passwords=1
Now-a-days server is having too much load due to http and in access logs we see following message : ======================================== 127.0.0.1 - - [11/Oct/2008:01:40:02 -0700] "OPTIONS * HTTP/1.0" 200 - 127.0.0.1 - - [11/Oct/2008:01:40:03 -0700] "OPTIONS * HTTP/1.0" 200 - 127.0.0.1 - - [11/Oct/2008:01:40:02 -0700] "OPTIONS * HTTP/1.0" 200 -=============================================
And due to this there is load on server. We are not able to understand why this is happening and how to stop this. So please suggest with some solution.
I have LAMP -server running and I was wondering how to test it's performance. So is there any good tools for that? I'm interest how many http queries my server could handle etc.
I am working on a busy and popular website which has a large amount of database activity - and requires hourly backups of all database data.
At the moment the site is hosted on two servers - one for the front end web server, one for the database.
Both servers are running a RAID HDD system which allows quick swaps of faulty HDDs without data loss. An hourly full backup of database tables is running which is killing the server when it runs.
ISP has suggested installing a third server to run as a slave to the existing DB server, and hence always hold a duplicated of the live database.
I have a feeling however that this is basically just like having RAID mirroring, but on a different machine - so to solve the problem of a potential dodgy SQL statement wiping out ALL copies of the live database, we'd STILL need hourly backups to run, and hence would still see the major system speed drop each hour at the time of backup.
I am currently hosting my website on one server with the specs:
2.8ghz Dual Quad-Core processor + 8 gigs of ram + two 500 hard drives with a 50 mbps unmetered bandwidth package.
My current problem lies in high server loads and very slow server performance throughout the day.
I am considering migrating over to The Planet onto server with the specs:
3.0ghz Dual Quad-Core + 18 gigs of ram + two 50gb hard drives with 2TB of monthly bandwidth transfer.
In an attempt to have great bandwidth pricing and server performance, I plan on downgrading my current server with my current host to a lowe-end server and keeping it only to host my VIDEO and MUSIC files with the 50mbps unmetered package. The Planet will then host my database and all other web related files on their new server.
Is this a good idea as an attempt to save money in bandwidth costs and eliminating my server lag issues?
I was offered a setup of a separate web and database server at my current host but from what I have read, no one touches the performance and reliability The Planet has to offer.
I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server where there's a performance issue with some of the .asp pages that retrieve data from Access databases, (I know Access databases aren't ideal for data). These pages will just get stuck/freeze, and then either suddenly spring back to life, or give a script timeout error 0113.
The largest Access database I've seen is 136MB (is that way too large?)
I will probably move some of the large Access databases onto a different server but before I do:
- Are there any tools you can recommend to diagnose exactly what files / databases are causing the problem. I don't think the Win 2000 performance monitor tools even work.
- Can anyone explain more about the technicalities behind this issue. I expect it has something to do with processes, threads, memory, Access drivers being loaded into memory etc etc. Can anyone tell me what they know to put me in the picture better?
