100% CPU Usage (on all 8 cores)

[Jim Ohlstein]

On 3/19/11 2:28 PM, kthxbai2u wrote:

This is too rich for me to not take a stab.

>> <sarcasm>
>> Congratulations
>> It's really difficult to get 100% efficiency for
>> modern code - this is 
>> truly scalable
>> </sarcasm>
> 
> Sorry not sure what you mean here...

Google "sarcasm"

 But the whole deal was that nginx is BETTER than apache, not worse. You
ework for nginx,

I'm guessing you think he "works" for nginx. Bad ASSumption. nginx is
FOSS. Google "FOSS" if you don't know what that means.

> I thought you would know that? With apache, the server load is normal, but the server responds slow (20 sec. pg loads).
> 
> As soon as i put nginx in, server load is 100%. It responds lightning fast (< 5 seconds), but after a while it crashes and I need to reboot.
> 
> I know this is not the way nginx performs. There is something wrong with it, or the config. Whole deal is, this was supposedly a script to install and get nginx working, and as it seems, 60% of users with multiple IP's and a shared host are reporting issues like mine. (not able to bind, etc)
>  
>> The server went offline and needed a reboot not
>> because a userland 
>> application misbehaved, but there is a problem at
>> the kernel level which 
>> isn't normally exposed.
> 
> Your blaming this on CentOS? CentOS works fine. Always has.
>  
>> Why not debug the httpd.conf and or post more
>> meaningful details - Like 
>> a pastie of the config or some way for others to
>> reproduce it?  I can't 
>> help directly, but I hope this helps get you on
>> track to get help..
> 
> If nginx had told me there were errors in the config, maybe I would debug it. Because it says each error (ignored) and NginX staff have told others they can ignore it, shouldn't I ignore those errors? Which config would you like to see? The 30+ vhost files that nginx made? or the httpd.conf from apache? Either way it is kind of an insane request to have such private, sensitive configuration data posted for the whole WWW to see....
> 

How is he to help you without the information? You can conceal sensitive
information if need be.

> Especially asking a webhost to do so... 

Do you think that you're the only "webhost" to try to get help here?

> If you want this kind of information, I could email it to you, or I can get you access to the server. The forum really should have a PM system, which would save me having to email you, but of course it doesnt :)

"This forum" (of which I just happen to be the webmaster) is merely a
gateway to a mailing list. Please look carefully at the name of the
specific forum in which you are posting and its description. You will
see that it is "Nginx Mailing List - English  A portal to and from from
the mailing list.". Most mailing list users do not use the forum and
vice versa. A PM system to the person who *tried* to help you would have
been rejected for that very reason. This is why I *intentionally* turned
off the PM system.

> 
> NginX worked before, it should work again...

It does work. The problem is with your configuration. That's why you
were asked to post it.

> 
> Posted at Nginx Forum: http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,183858,183994#msg-183994
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nginx mailing list
> nginx at nginx.org
> http://nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx


-- 
Jim Ohlstein