I am not exactly a Linux newbie. Been working with it as a sysadmin for years (and have been using it since pre-1.0 versions). I have tried tuning (wsize/rsize etc), but haven't been able to get good performance. Period. I did a rather non-scientific test:
time cat 100mbfile >/dev/null
The server:
Celeron 300 @ 450 Raid 0 disk, two IDE disks. Performance for the above test locally is about 11MB / sec. 256MiB of RAM RH5.2, kernel 2.2.4
Client:
K6-2/333 128MiB RH5.2, 2.2.4
Of course when I do another test, I got up to 6.3MiB / sec. Guess my server had a bad day or something. No configuration has been done since then and both times the computers were totally idle. Oh well.
"Isn't Slashdot running on a lesser machine than the test server? And cranking nicely with perl and Apache doing the dirtywork? "
Well, Slashdot has no load compared to the benchmark they did. I mean, 1000 requests per second is 82M accesser per day. Not many sites even come close to that.
Even if their test results ARE correct why the heck cares? I mean, if someone has a site that gets that many requests, would they really just use one computer, no matter the OS? I really doubt it...
One thing though - Linux + NFS sucks. Badly. I just upgraded to a 100 Mbps network and when copying a large file from nfs (server is PII-450, raided disk) to/dev/null I only get 1.5 MiB/s. When I did a test, for comparision only, with smbfs, I got 3MiB/s. This is with the user-level nfsd since knfsd won't compile on my 2.2.x/glibc system.
Well, I believe that it's one thing to start a project as open source and a different thing to successfully open a huge, closed source project. I think one of the major reasons for the lack of success in this case was that the source that was released wasn't usable, in addition to being huge. If they had released the source to Netscape 4, which at least is usable (if barely), it might have had somewhat more of a success.
I don't know though. The whole browser thing kind of sucks. We have Netscape - slow, bloated, buggy, bad with standards. We have IE - rather fast, but also very bloated, buggy, full of security holes and available on a limited amount of platforms. Then we have Opera. Small, fast, but still only available for Windows. Also not a full featured browser. Lynx is nice for some things, but worthless for many.
That's about it. All the other attempts are often less usable. It's a sad thing, really.
As someone already mentioned, 12000 unique page views per month isn't very much at all. It's probably not enough to attract private advertisers most likely. What you can do with smaller sites is to use one of the agencies (like Burst Media). Mark Welch has put together a nice site with banner ad resources. Check it out and you should be able to find something even for a small site. Please note that even with a $5 CPM (Cost per thousand page views) which is pretty average, your site would only earn $60 per month.
It means that the site, or the agency used, can't sell all advertising space. This is not uncommon at all. Normally unsold advertising is either ads for the advertising agency or the site (if it sells it's own advertising), some kind of per-click ads, public service ads or whatever.
First of all, Roxen supports CGI's (of course). There is however no reason to use them most of the time, since you can do the same easier with a module or pike script.
Also, image handling is something Roxen is very good at (with on-the-fly graphical header generation and much more). I made a little script that does about what your script does, but with float scaling and support for GIF, PNG and JPEG.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not exactly a Linux newbie. Been working with it as a sysadmin for years (and have been using it since pre-1.0 versions). I have tried tuning (wsize/rsize etc), but haven't been able to get good performance. Period. I did a rather non-scientific test:
time cat 100mbfile >/dev/null
The server:
Celeron 300 @ 450
Raid 0 disk, two IDE disks. Performance for the above test locally is about 11MB / sec.
256MiB of RAM
RH5.2, kernel 2.2.4
Client:
K6-2/333
128MiB
RH5.2, 2.2.4
Of course when I do another test, I got up to 6.3MiB / sec. Guess my server had a bad day or something. No configuration has been done since then and both times the computers were totally idle. Oh well.
Well, you're wrong. The default _per_process_ max is 1024. The default system-max is 4096. So I really doubt it's an FD-problem.
"Isn't Slashdot running on a lesser machine than the test server? And cranking nicely with perl and Apache doing the dirtywork? "
/dev/null I only get 1.5 MiB/s. When I did a test, for comparision only, with smbfs, I got 3MiB/s. This is with the user-level nfsd since knfsd won't compile on my 2.2.x/glibc system.
Well, Slashdot has no load compared to the benchmark they did. I mean, 1000 requests per second is 82M accesser per day. Not many sites even come close to that.
Even if their test results ARE correct why the heck cares? I mean, if someone has a site that gets that many requests, would they really just use one computer, no matter the OS? I really doubt it...
One thing though - Linux + NFS sucks. Badly. I just upgraded to a 100 Mbps network and when copying a large file from nfs (server is PII-450, raided disk) to
Well, I believe that it's one thing to start a project as open source and a different thing to successfully open a huge, closed source project. I think one of the major reasons for the lack of success in this case was that the source that was released wasn't usable, in addition to being huge. If they had released the source to Netscape 4, which at least is usable (if barely), it might have had somewhat more of a success.
I don't know though. The whole browser thing kind of sucks. We have Netscape - slow, bloated, buggy, bad with standards. We have IE - rather fast, but also very bloated, buggy, full of security holes and available on a limited amount of platforms. Then we have Opera. Small, fast, but still only available for Windows. Also not a full featured browser. Lynx is nice for some things, but worthless for many.
That's about it. All the other attempts are often less usable. It's a sad thing, really.
What it means exactly differs from time to time. It can mean both 1000 page view and 1000 unique page views.
As someone already mentioned, 12000 unique page views per month isn't very much at all. It's probably not enough to attract private advertisers most likely. What you can do with smaller sites is to use one of the agencies (like Burst Media). Mark Welch has put together a nice site with banner ad resources. Check it out and you should be able to find something even for a small site. Please note that even with a $5 CPM (Cost per thousand page views) which is pretty average, your site would only earn $60 per month.
It means that the site, or the agency used, can't sell all advertising space. This is not uncommon at all. Normally unsold advertising is either ads for the advertising agency or the site (if it sells it's own advertising), some kind of per-click ads, public service ads or whatever.
Also, image handling is something Roxen is very good at (with on-the-fly graphical header generation and much more). I made a little script that does about what your script does, but with float scaling and support for GIF, PNG and JPEG.
Click here for a demonstration or view the source.
As you can see, my script is only 80 lines and 2300 chars, compared to your 509 lines and 1900 chars.