[horde] Apache Performance tuning with Horde

[Patrick De Zordo]

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: horde [mailto:horde-bounces at lists.horde.org] Im Auftrag von Arjen de
> Korte
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Dezember 2014 12:50
> An: horde at lists.horde.org
> Betreff: Re: [horde] Apache Performance tuning with Horde
> 
> Citeren Patrick De Zordo <patrick at spamreducer.eu>:
> 
> > Dear guys,
> >
> > I am wondering since I have installed Horde if there are some proofed
> > apache performance tuning guidelines.
> >
> >
> >
> > Short test system description:
> >
> > -          1 CPU, 2GB RAM, SSD HDD
> 
> That is not a whole lot of RAM. You'll probably benefit much more from using
> more RAM than an SSD (which is at least an order of magnitude slower than
> RAM/tmpfs). Given enough RAM in your system, even caching to harddisk
> may be fairly responsive.

Yes, you are right, but since there is almost no data read or written to the disk during this CPU spikes the problem can't be because of the SAN storage I think.
I'll post a new message with our debugging output using dstat, so you can see there is no IO waiting state and no heavy transfers to the disks going on.

> 
> > -          Ubuntu 14.04.1 LTS
> >
> >
> >
> > Every time an ActiveSync client connects to the Horde server it keeps
> > an apache process up to nearly 100% CPU consumption for about 10
> > seconds and makes some disk readings in the meantime. I think it is
> > because Horde have to look through all the IMAP structure for changed
> > since last sync. Is my assumption true?
> 
> If you're using something like Courier-IMAP (or another non-caching server),
> yes. If you're using something like Dovecot, this should take next to no time
> at all, as long as you use the Dovecot LDA for local delivery (which will keep
> the index files up to date).

I am using dovecot with his LDA for local delivery; accessing dovecot directly via IMAP is light speed fast as normal.

> 
> > We have enabled the apache2 PHP 5.5.9 internal OpCache + local
> Memcached.
> 
> On a single machine, filebased caching using a tmpfs volume will be faster
> than Memcached. Unless you're using multiple servers in parallel, I'd
> recommend against using Memcached.
> 

Could there be an issue using OpCache + Memcached together?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6229 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.horde.org/archives/horde/attachments/20141204/85825e82/attachment.bin>