6 ms·
It's only bad if you need to get more than 2000 rps Which is only a small proportion of sites out there.
by slyall 1y ago
It's only bad if you need to get more than 2000 rps
Which is only a small proportion of sites out there.
- kqr 1y agoI'd argue it's bad even if you get more than 1000 Bq of requests. You never want to approach 100 % utilisation, and I'd aim to stay clear of 50 %.
- Tractor8626 1y agoIf there is no some other advantages - it is just bad.
- kragen 1y agoIt's boring technology that's supported everywhere, and starting the program from the beginning for every request eliminates a lot of the places where corrupted state can persist from one request to the next.
- gred 1y agoI'd rather not pay for 8 cores / 16 threads, though...
- withinboredom 1y agoDepends on where you are shopping. I pay €211 every month for 96 threads and 384 gb of ram (clustered) -- disks are small (around 1tb each), but I'm still nowhere near 50% utilization there.
- gred 1y agoYeah, I pay $400/month to not be bothered with any installation or upgrade drama, ever. The problem is that I only get 16 threads.
- johnisgood 1y agoI installed many Arch Linux for servers, they have been online for decades. There is no fuss. The only downtime was when I issued a reboot, but it was back in 5 seconds if not less. So you really do not have to be bothered by installation or anything of these lines. You install once and you are fine. You should check out the Wiki pages of Arch Linux, for example. It is pretty straightforward. As for upgrades, Arch Linux NEVER broke. Not on my servers, and not on my desktop. That said, to each their own.
- indigodaddy 1y agoArch on servers is completely insane, unless you never update or are a maniac and update every few days
- oblio 1y agoSoftware is so advanced these days that tech SMBs can probably run Windows XP in production.
- johnisgood 1y agoWhy would you think that it is insane? It works well, and had no issues for decades. Any personal experiences you have that suggest otherwise? I would love to hear. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not regurgitating what other people have been saying (IMO wrongfully), which is: "Arch Linux for servers? Eww. Bleeding edge. Not suitable for servers.". All that said, please, do share. It will not negate those decades of no issues, however. As I said, I maintain quite a lot of Arch Linux servers with loads of services without any issues, for decades.
- indigodaddy 1y agoI used Arch for a few years on desktop (granted that was over ten years ago), and if I didn't update frequently enough, updates would routinely break. I would never use it on a server because of that. RedHat and Debian exist for a reason.
- masklinn 1y ago> It's only bad if you need to get more than 2000 rps Or if you don't want to pay for an 8/16 for the sort of throughput you can get on a VPS with half a core.
- YmiYugy 1y agoYes, but it's running on pretty powerful hardware. Try this with 1 vCPU, 512MB RAM and a website, that makes a lot of requests for a single page visit. Until recently I used to maintain some legacy B2B software, where each customer got their own container with very strict resource limits. A single page visit could cause 20-50 requests. Removing CGI was a significant performance win, even with a single user loading just one page.