It depends on what you are doing...I have a stripped down server that is apache & pgsql with nothing else. It is a 933mhz with 256M ram and I have optimized both apache and pgsql to run. I have really nothing else on the system. The only draw back I see is that if you split the two up and you have tons of network traffic; you queries might take longer over the network. You also have the question of authentication with pgsql for the connection when you have the two on different machines. If you trust you network 100% then you can have a trusted connection--else you need to set up some type of authentication which might decrease performance. I have not done any testing in this area; however, I am debting whether or not to go down the road.
As for the cpu's, I have not looked into the L2 cache as of yet.
Hope this helps...
Ray Hunter
Firmware Engineer
ENTERASYS NETWORKS
-----Original Message-----
From: Zavier [mailto:zavier@zavier.net]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 7:03 PM
To: pgsql-php@postgresql.org
Subject: [PHP] Web & DB Servers
I'm wondering what the better solution is:
Apache/PHP & PgSQL on one physical server with 100% performance (ie. 1200 MHz, 2GB RAM) or have Apache & PgSQL each on a server with half the performance (600MHz/1GB RAM each).
I'm especially curious in the way long running queries affect the L2 cache performance in the mixed enviroment. What if Apache & PgSQL are fighting over the L2 cache making it's large size (in case of the new .13 micron CPU's from Intel) rather useless compared to the "dedicated solution", where each CPU runs only one application and can use the cache better? Maybe I'm missing something here completely, so I would appreciate any comments/suggestions. Is there a noticable performance gain in splitting the server in two?
Thanks!
-Zavier
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster