From Peter at PSDT.com  Tue Jun 25 20:48:14 2013
From: Peter at PSDT.com (Peter Scott)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:48:14 -0700
Subject: [mpm-itk] Limit to number of virtual hosts?
Message-ID: <51C9E5EE.20301@PSDT.com>

We are running with 160 virtual hosts and are wondering whether we are 
pushing the limits of ITK too far.  Each root httpd has all the log 
files for all virtual hosts open, which means 1700+ lsof entries for 
each process, and we are seeing between 100 and 300 of those processes 
at a time.  And 60 MB RSS for each httpd.  Wondering whether anyone has 
exceeded that number of virtual hosts with ITK and whether they had 
problems.



From azurit at pobox.sk  Tue Jun 25 21:02:29 2013
From: azurit at pobox.sk (azurIt)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 21:02:29 +0200
Subject: [mpm-itk] =?utf-8?q?Limit_to_number_of_virtual_hosts=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <51C9E5EE.20301@psdt.com>
References: <51C9E5EE.20301@psdt.com>
Message-ID: <20130625210229.995EEAB4@pobox.sk>

Hi,

we are running 9901 virtual hosts on biggest server, no problems at all.

azur


______________________________________________________________
> Od: "Peter Scott" <Peter at psdt.com>
> Komu: <mpm-itk at err.no>
> D?tum: 25.06.2013 20:50
> Predmet: [mpm-itk] Limit to number of virtual hosts?
>
>We are running with 160 virtual hosts and are wondering whether we are 
>pushing the limits of ITK too far.  Each root httpd has all the log 
>files for all virtual hosts open, which means 1700+ lsof entries for 
>each process, and we are seeing between 100 and 300 of those processes 
>at a time.  And 60 MB RSS for each httpd.  Wondering whether anyone has 
>exceeded that number of virtual hosts with ITK and whether they had 
>problems.
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpm-itk mailing list
>mpm-itk at err.no
>http://lists.err.no/mailman/listinfo/mpm-itk
>



From ssmeenk at freshdot.net  Tue Jun 25 22:42:26 2013
From: ssmeenk at freshdot.net (Sander Smeenk)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:42:26 +0200
Subject: [mpm-itk] Limit to number of virtual hosts?
In-Reply-To: <51C9E5EE.20301@PSDT.com>
References: <51C9E5EE.20301@PSDT.com>
Message-ID: <20130625204226.GI22472@dot.freshdot.net>

Quoting Peter Scott (Peter at PSDT.com):

> We are running with 160 virtual hosts and are wondering whether we
> are pushing the limits of ITK too far.

I have ~400 vhosts on my system, ~20000 open filehandles at this moment,
no issues at all.

My munin graph seems to indicate the Max Open Files is ~800000.
I'm not up to speed on the details of all this, but that value
seems to scale up and down to increasing 'pressure' on open
filehandles.

> And 60 MB RSS for each httpd.  Wondering whether anyone has exceeded
> that number of virtual hosts with ITK and whether they had problems.

To me this seems high, i'm at 16MB atm. I think this is highly dependent
on configuration and modules, etc. Provided your servers have enough RAM
this shouldn't be a problem. ;)

-Snr.
-- 
| Do stars clean themselves with meteor showers?
| 4096R/20CC6CD2 - 6D40 1A20 B9AA 87D4 84C7  FBD6 F3A9 9442 20CC 6CD2



From christoph.roethlisberger at iway.ch  Wed Jun 26 12:56:31 2013
From: christoph.roethlisberger at iway.ch (Christoph Roethlisberger)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:56:31 +0200
Subject: [mpm-itk] Limit to number of virtual hosts?
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1372240801.10159.mpm-itk@err.no>
References: <mailman.1.1372240801.10159.mpm-itk@err.no>
Message-ID: <1095602804.20130626125631@iway.ch>

We are running up to ~400 virtual hosts on our servers and there is no general problem with that.

But we've switched (back) to one single access and error logfile for all the vhosts, as reloads and restarts are soooooo much faster this way.
On our older servers we have individual logs and on reloads it took often several seconds till the apache served requests again.
Now with only a handfull of logfiles, the reloads and restarts are done within 0.0x seconds

Christoph 


> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:48:14 -0700
> From: Peter Scott <Peter at PSDT.com>
> To: mpm-itk at err.no
> Subject: [mpm-itk] Limit to number of virtual hosts?
> Message-ID: <51C9E5EE.20301 at PSDT.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

> We are running with 160 virtual hosts and are wondering whether we are 
> pushing the limits of ITK too far.  Each root httpd has all the log 
> files for all virtual hosts open, which means 1700+ lsof entries for 
> each process, and we are seeing between 100 and 300 of those processes 
> at a time.  And 60 MB RSS for each httpd.  Wondering whether anyone has 
> exceeded that number of virtual hosts with ITK and whether they had 
> problems.