Re: [Slashcode-general] Performance issues..?

[shane <sh...@lo...>]

At 09:59 AM 11/9/2001 +0100, Markus Ackermann wrote:
>yo...@ho... wrote:
> > [dagnabbit, I hate it when replies don't go to the list by default....]
> >
> > > I've got a 466 Celeron, 384mb memory, ide disk drive. Realistically it is
> > > not enough. It seems CPU bound. But thanks for the tip on the Athlon 
> - that
> > > will help my upgrade plans when I get to it.
> >
> > Interesting, it seems to me like that would cut it if you have enough RAM
> > (like Shane said, that is key).
>
>Exactly. We were running a Slash 1.0.9 on a P200 with 256MB RAM, which
>was mostly ok (after a fair bit of apache tuning). But our first test
>server was a P233 with only 32MB RAM - absolutely insufficient. With
>more than 2 simaltanious connects  it was even impossible to connect
>with ssh - it was swapping like hell. No chance even after days of
>waiting - you had to login locally and kill all apache processes...
>
>Markus.

With the older version of slash you could get away with low-end
hardware if you had multiple boxes.

I ran two slash sites on two HP Vectra's - one ran apache, one
MySQL. Both had 'overdrive' chips that upgraded the P75 to ~P200
and both had 96MB ram. Not exactly lightning quick,
but they held up for over a year with multiple sites
that had low traffic.

If it didn't take so long to work on the boxes (ie install
perl modules, make && install etc) I'd be tempted to put the
latest slash on there just to see how it'd work out.

  Shane