6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?

[Alexey Vesnin]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Klop" <ronald-freebsd8 at klop.yi.org>
To: "Frans-Jan v. Steenbeek" <Frans-Jan at van-steenbeek.net>;
<freebsd-stable at freebsd.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: 6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?


> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:42:18 +0200, Frans-Jan v. Steenbeek
> <Frans-Jan at van-Steenbeek.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm a sysadmin and a web-programmer at a company in the Netherlands. In
> > the following month we will launch a webshop which will have a estimated
> > 1000 full hits in the first weeks (estimated through calculation of the
> > marketing-departement). I am writing the webshop, and have installed the
> > webserver. Because of issues with our housing, we can't put our HP
> > webserver to use, since it produces to much noise in our very small
> > building. Since we are moving in a few months, we decided to use a HP
> > laptop instead (reasonably fast CPU, 512 Megs) since we had a few to
> > spare.
>
> What do you mean by 1000 hits? Is it 1000 customers or 1000 http requests?
> 1000 hits a week is 1000 / ( 7 * 24 * 60 ) = 0 hits per minute or 5 in an
> hour.
> If your laptop crashes every 10 minutes there is a change no customer wil
> notice it.
>
> > The toy is currently set up with FreeBSD 6.0-BETA2, Apache 2.0, MySQL
5.0
> > and PHP-5.0 with all the reasonable modules. Everything is compiled from
> > ports. No changes to the kernel yet, no world-rebuilding done.
> >
> > I trust the laptop enough to get the job done, but I wonder if 6.0-BETA2
> > will be up for the task. I heard rumours that it should be more stable
> > and
> > faster then 5.4-RELEASE (which I use mostly nowadays), but it IS beta
> > after all. On the other hand, I get the impression that 6.0 is the
> > release
> > of choice for deploying anything on a laptop (considering that darned
> > Pentium-M). Another thing, I do not fully trust the combination of
Apache
> > 2.0, MySQL 5.0 and PHP 5.0, since they are all quite new in the
> > frontlines.
> > This would be a decent testcase for 6.0, but the thing is... I can't
> > afford any crashes (this webshop is considered to settle the future for
> > our company) and we are talking about a laptop here.
>
> Funny to settle the future for a company this way. I hope your customers
> aren't reading this.
> ;-)
>
> > I will post all problems not yet reported to the list, but if anyone of
> > you would like to share his or her opinion on this matter, please let me
> > know. Will 4.11-RELEASE perhaps be a better choice?
>
> You are asking a silly question. It comes down to "I'm running BETA
> software. Can I expect this to be STABLE?".
> If it is stable, it wil say stable in the version number.
>
> Except for Apache all your software is beta, but from sourcecode which is
> quite mature for some time.
> You can only answer this question by inviting 1000 (virtual) friends and
> ask them to buy something in your webshop.
>
> Ronald.
>
> --
>   Ronald Klop
>   Amsterdam, The Netherlands
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>

STABLE-4 is VERY good and my advice for you - use it instead of any
beta's... MySQL v5 is good but greedy one. You'll need ALOT of memory. And
Apache2 - it's just a question of taste. Frequently speaking - I'm still
using Apache1 and it works pretty stable and fine...