... comments inline
Steve Lane wrote:
>I'm less concerned with performance (at the moment) than concurrency. My
>worry is that (lacking a multithreaded web server, which Apache 2.0 appears
>to give me), I need to have 800-1200 processes, one per connection, running
>on the web server or servers. I don't know if that's feasible under any
>circumstances.
>
>I guess I'm less worried about the front end though, because load-balancing
>across multiple web servers is not a huge deal.
>
With PHP and say a dual box with Piii Xeons @800Mhz you can expect
600-800 users with a 'moderate' dynamic content volume. Your app
probably falls more towards the heavy column, and it requires loads of
RAM. Apache 2 may solve some of that but... well.... I have no idea as
I've yet to even look at it :)
>
>Can you clarify that second sentence a bit? I wasn't aware I had much choice
>-- meaning that, since Apache 1.x + PHP is not multithreaded and does not do
>connection pooling, I think I'm stuck with one database connection per
>front-side client connection.
>
PHP with mysql does do DB connection pooling, and MAY do conneciton
pooling for postgres (check the docs), and in fact probably does.