3 ms·

Rather than fuss over Apache settings, use some decent caching strategies and you won't need to worry about this at all. And BTW, nginx is not always faster tha

by sabat 16y ago

Rather than fuss over Apache settings, use some decent caching strategies and you won't need to worry about this at all. And BTW, nginx is not always faster than Apache, and not always the best choice for any app.

jalada 16y ago
True, and true. The main issue with caching WordPress is that WordPress itself is very dynamic and full of cookies, WordPress has plenty of caching plugins available but as I point out, that wont help you against Apache spawning tens of processes and eating all your RAM. So therefore you're down to external caching, which is another layer of complexity and detrimental to anything dynamic you have on your blog (which is pretty common).
- sabat 16y ago
  You're right, it caching won't help directly. But if every hit takes a tiny fraction of a second because it's (at least mostly) cached, it will take a lot more to overwhelm Apache. Caching Wordpress is not trivial, but it's not necessarily all that difficult -- it depends on the particular blog and how dynamic it has to be. I've had success setting up caching for my own stuff as well as a high-traffic online magazine. Your larger point, BTW, that Apache can be overwhelmed, and that it makes a lot of sense to do some math and tune the configuration -- makes a lot of sense. I'd not really thought about that in depth before, but it seems obvious now. :-)
getsat 16y ago
Can you provide an example of a situation where nginx is not "faster" than Apache? nginx beats Apache on concurrent connections, reverse proxying throughput, cpu usage, memory usage (no additional thread/process stacks as connection count increases), etc.
jefe78 16y ago
I'm always a little frustrated when people recommend nginx over Apache. No argument; they're both great, but why would you suggest that someone adopt a new technology and deal with those hurdles, instead of making suggestions to their current environment and then guiding them towards future adoption? Thank you sir for standing up for Apache!

by sabat 16y ago

jalada 16y ago

True, and true. The main issue with caching WordPress is that WordPress itself is very dynamic and full of cookies, WordPress has plenty of caching plugins available but as I point out, that wont help you against Apache spawning tens of processes and eating all your RAM. So therefore you're down to external caching, which is another layer of complexity and detrimental to anything dynamic you have on your blog (which is pretty common).

sabat 16y ago
You're right, it caching won't help directly. But if every hit takes a tiny fraction of a second because it's (at least mostly) cached, it will take a lot more to overwhelm Apache. Caching Wordpress is not trivial, but it's not necessarily all that difficult -- it depends on the particular blog and how dynamic it has to be. I've had success setting up caching for my own stuff as well as a high-traffic online magazine. Your larger point, BTW, that Apache can be overwhelmed, and that it makes a lot of sense to do some math and tune the configuration -- makes a lot of sense. I'd not really thought about that in depth before, but it seems obvious now. :-)

getsat 16y ago

Can you provide an example of a situation where nginx is not "faster" than Apache? nginx beats Apache on concurrent connections, reverse proxying throughput, cpu usage, memory usage (no additional thread/process stacks as connection count increases), etc.

jefe78 16y ago

I'm always a little frustrated when people recommend nginx over Apache. No argument; they're both great, but why would you suggest that someone adopt a new technology and deal with those hurdles, instead of making suggestions to their current environment and then guiding them towards future adoption? Thank you sir for standing up for Apache!