New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Low end/low resource Apache 2 configuration?
SandwichBagGhost
Member
in Help
So I have a little server with 96 MB of RAM and would like to host a dynamic site with Anchor CMS.
Do you guys have a low end/low resource Apache 2 configuration? I've been looking for this for a long time but have found nothing so far. Of course I could use Nginx like I do with all my other servers.
Comments
If you only have 96 MB of ram, I'd recommend you use nginx instead.
96 MB RAM is enough for one dynamic site on a CMS that is < 1 MB of size. I already have a LEB MySQL configuration and a good PHP-FPM configuration. Apache is just the problem. The link on the lowendbox Wiki for a guide on a 64 MB RAM VPS leads to some VPS review instead of the guide. So that was it...
You nailed it precisely. There's zero rationale in using Apache, personally I never do so even on 16GB of RAM servers, let alone on low-RAM. Though in my case the choice is Lighttpd.
Here is the link for the article you need http://lowendbox.com/blog/yes-you-can-run-18-static-sites-on-a-64mb-link-1-vps/
But LEA favors using nginx / Lighttpd for low memory systems. try your gamble and let us know
Lighttpd master race! Down with Apache!
I'm using apache2 on all of my sites (on LowEnd VPS's; >=256MB Ram) and never had any problems (dynamic sites; PHP; average visitors).
Down with nginx/lighttpd/any other crap webserver. Hail apache2!
http://ha.ckers.org/slowloris/
RIP Apache.
It's too small.
Wow, stop coming up with old useless stuff. It's been patched.
Are you using the default Apache 2 configuration? I've tried this before and it ended up with a lot of Apache spawns and crashs.
Hey, thank you for spamming my topic with your trash.
96 MB is not too small. You just have no idea so stop posting in here.
Maybe it's our friend mazker again?!
edit: or mtwiscool, I forgot he got banned too
inb4 Jon
Came here when I realized Jon is also an option, but you've beaten me to it! :-P
@SandwichBagHost
Yep.
I use apache on all of my site. But I must agree, 96mb of ram is too small for apache. It will be fine if it is just a static site, but if it is a dynamic site and have quite a number of visitor, well if not crash it will be mostly a constanst >90% usage.
Try lighttpd instead, or maybe nginx.. (I personally much prefer lighttpd)
But if you want to insist using apache, you must change the number in config file as low as you can.. there are no other way
Use Apache's Worker MPM rather than the default thread safe Prefork MPM. If you have access to Apache2.4 you could also try the event MPM (just turn stable).
In speed, Worker is a little faster than Prefork (seen benchmarks faster than Nginx, if'y tests though). However, memory usage is much lower.
We have to use the Prefork on any site that uses PHP - but it seems you don't need PHP support. Might as well use Worker.
like to share your config please?
for my 96 mb vm
Nah. It's fine. Tell someone with a bunch of configuration done to match the syntax of apache modules that barely can even be ported to another web server and then have to be entirely rewritten, that there's no rationale for taking a few minutes to learn how to performance tweak. The lazy approach of installing a web server that's lighter by default might actually not be the lazy path for someone else.
Try nginx instead.
I would if I had it complete. Missing the Apache configuration. But it depends on whether I can get something useful together. If not I will resort to Nginx with PHP-FPM and MySQL through MariaDB.
http://nginx.org/
Nginx + PHP-FPM + sqlite and I bet Anchor will run in 32MB, never mind a 96MB monster
Some scripts like Vanilla Forums that this forum uses (Mods: Footer backlink to Vanilla is broken BTW) have Apache2 mentioned in the requirements. So is it absolutely necessary to use apache if I want to host a script that? Because I cannot know what script I want to use in the future or test on my VPS.
I just tested the latest Apache in dotdeb and it still goes down.
Try lowering the number of workers it can spawn, tweak the keep alive settings, decrease the number of threads, etc. I don't have a working configuration here but a lot is possible.
The patch is optional and has to be installed first. Don't know why they are not including it as default.
To keep us sysadmins employed