Also you may find this link useful :http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/544
> From:: Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com>
> To: users(a)lists.bitfolk.com
> Subject: Re: [bitfolk] Specs & Performance Question
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 00:26:54 +0000
> Hi John,
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 04:47:10PM +0100, John Morgan Salomon wrote:
> > I am working on figuring out my Drupal/Apache configuration issues (of
> > which there are several), but while I can probably get the memory
> > usage to somewhat tolerable levels, I would be grateful to hear from
> > people who have similar setups what sort of minimum memory specs you
> > recommend for 5-10 Apache processes? I have no problem figuring out
> > what 'd theoretically need, but it would be very cool if anyone could
> > share their real-life experience on what they'd recommend to be safe.
> Well, first up I have no direct experience of Drupal. However..
> The most important thing is to check you're not swapping. You
> should see how big the typical Apache child process is and then see
> how many of those you can fit in your RAM, setting maxclients
> appropriately.
> As Duane said, if you can use Lighttpd instead of Apache then that
> will help.
> Also do not neglect your MySQL configuration:
> <a target="_blank"
> href='http://drupal.org/node/85768'>http://drupal.org/node/85768</a>
> Cheers
> Andy
> --
> <a target="_blank" href='http://bitfolk.com/'>http://bitfolk.com/</a> --
> No-nonsense VPS hosting
> Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB
> </pre><pre>_______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users(a)lists.bitfolk.com
> https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
Hi there,
I'm in the process of setting up a fairly basic Apache2/mod-ssl/mysql5/
Drupal ecommerce site, and am seeing fairly horrid RAM performance on
my VPS.
I am working on figuring out my Drupal/Apache configuration issues (of
which there are several), but while I can probably get the memory
usage to somewhat tolerable levels, I would be grateful to hear from
people who have similar setups what sort of minimum memory specs you
recommend for 5-10 Apache processes? I have no problem figuring out
what 'd theoretically need, but it would be very cool if anyone could
share their real-life experience on what they'd recommend to be safe.
Thanks,
-John
Hi,
I'm having problems accessing Bitfolk's online banking at the moment
due to the complete incompetence of Abbey Business Banking.
Apparently it all has to be sorted out by postal mail so is going to
take days.
Therefore, if you have paid by standing order/BACS it may be a while
before I can process it, and you may start receiving automated
reminders. Don't worry, I will not be cutting anyone off until I
have access to the online banking again.
It's also highly likely that Bitfolk's bank details will change
soon, but if that happens the accounts will be run in parallel for a
time.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB
Hi,
BitFolk's IP assignment has grown from 212.13.194.0/24 (i.e.
212.13.194.0 -> 212.13.194.255) to 212.13.194.0/23 (i.e.
212.13.194.0 -> 212.13.195.255). This means that almost all
customers in the UK need to change their netmask.
This is largely harmless since all it means is that you cannot
communicate with IPs in 212.13.195.x, and for some time to come that
will only be other customers. However, eventually I will need to
start putting infrastructure into there too.
Here are some instructions on how to change the settings. You
should be able to do this without losing any network connectivity.
These instructions are for Debian/Ubuntu, so Centos and Gentoo folks
you are on your own unfortunately, but this isn't complicated -- I
believe the only Debian-specific bit is step 4.
1. Make sure you have access to your Xen shell console in case
anything goes wrong.
2. MAKE SURE YOU HAVE ACCESS TO YOUR XEN CONSOLE IN CASE ANYTHING
GOES WRONG. REALLY. LOG IN AND CHECK.
3. Check that you actually need to do this. An example of a VPS
that needs to make a change:
$ /sbin/ip ro
212.13.194.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 212.13.194.75
default via 212.13.194.1 dev eth0
Note the /24 -- it should be /23.
4. Fix your config file, /etc/network/interfaces. Here's an example
of the content before it is fixed:
----[ /etc/network/interfaces ]--------------------------------------
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
auto eth0
iface eth0 inet static
address 212.13.194.75
netmask 255.255.255.0
gateway 212.13.194.1
----[ /etc/network/interfaces ]--------------------------------------
Here's an example after fixing:
----[ /etc/network/interfaces ]--------------------------------------
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
auto eth0
iface eth0 inet static
address 212.13.194.75
netmask 255.255.254.0
gateway 212.13.194.1
----[ /etc/network/interfaces ]--------------------------------------
The only line changed is the netmask.
You should change this config file ready for the next boot, but
it won't alter your current settings.
5. Find your current IP address:
$ /sbin/ip -4 addr
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000
inet 212.13.194.75/24 scope global eth0
In this example my IP address is 212.13.194.75.
6. Add it with the correct settings:
$ /sbin/ip addr add 212.13.194.75/23 dev eth0
That should complete without error.
7. Remove the old one:
$ /sbin/ip addr del 212.13.194.75/24 dev eth0
That should complete without error.
8. Check that your routing table is now correct:
$ /sbin/ip ro
212.13.194.0/23 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 212.13.194.75
default via 212.13.194.1 dev eth0
That's it. You should not lose connectivity at any point during this
procedure.
If you're already using the /23 setup (anyone set up probably in the
last 2 weeks, but do check) then you don't need to do anything.
If you have your own net block routed to you then you don't need to
do anything.
If you have multiple IPs then your interfaces file might look a bit
like this:
----[ /etc/network/interfaces ]--------------------------------------
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
auto eth0
iface eth0 inet static
address 212.13.194.75
netmask 255.255.255.0
gateway 212.13.194.1
auto eth0:1
iface eth0:1 inet static
address 212.13.194.116
netmask 255.255.255.255
----[ /etc/network/interfaces ]--------------------------------------
The netmask of aliased IPs (eth0:1, eth0:2, ...) does not need to
change. IP aliases on the same network as another interface are
supposed to be 255.255.255.255 netmask. So in this case you would
only need to be fixing the netmask for the eth0 entry, and
adding/deleting 212.13.194.75.
If you have any questions please feel free to mail me on or offlist
about it before you do anything.
If Centos/Gentoo folks could contribute a HOWTO for this then that
would be great.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB
Hi,
As a consequence of
http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/message/20081126.124158.ef9b9b75.en.html
it looks like I can process credit cards over the phone if
absolutely necessary.
Obviously I would prefer not to do this because I don't really want
to personally interact with people on the phone or take their credit
card details myself, but if there is no other way for you to pay
then we can do that.
Accepted cards:
Mastercard
Maestro
Solo (if it has a CSC)
Visa
Visa Electron (if it has a CSC)
The web site will be updated with this info shortly.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB
Hello,
Anyone got any experience integrating with a payment service
provider basically from scratch? i.e. to take credit/debit card
payments directly from the web site.
Protx[1] looks good, but requires a merchant account and Bitfolk does
not have one. Bitfolk's bank, Abbey, is not one of the ones listed
and after having a look through the sites of the ones that are,
getting an account seems costly and painful.
Worldpay[2] seems to offer to do the lot end to end, but for a high
fee. From what I can see they want 4.5% + £0.06 per transaction.
The average[3] transaction Bitfolk makes is £27.04, the mode[4] is
£8.00 and the median[5] is £16.00.
Danger, ASCII art approaching..
+--------------------+--------------+--------------------------+
| Payment | Transaction | Cost to process |
| method | fees +---------+-------+--------+
| | | Average | Mode | Median |
+--------------------+--------------+---------+-------+--------+
| BACS | £0.00 | £0.00 | £0.00 | £0.00 |
| Paypal | 3.4% + £0.20 | £1.12 | £0.47 | £0.74 |
| Google | 1.5% + £0.15 | £0.56 | £0.27 | £0.39 |
| Worldpay | | | | |
| (UK debit) | £0.56 | £0.56 | £0.56 | £0.56 |
| (everything else) | 4.5% + £0.06 | £1.28 | £0.42 | £0.78 |
+--------------------+--------------+---------+-------+--------+
Protx does not appear to have any transaction fees of its own for
the Small Business plan, just £20/month flat fee. Operating a
merchant account may have separate fees however. Most of the banks
seem to be keen to push their own PSP services which look quite
costly. I'm finding it hard to find information for just the basic
merchant account such that Protx could be used.
Worldpay also costs £30/month on top of the transaction fees. If
there is no other easy option then I would probably implement
Worldpay, but would have to pass the costs on. Likewise for
anything else that ends up more costly than Paypal.
So, anyone got any other recommendations?
I'm not bothered if the solution needs to redirect the customer to
the PSP's own web site as long as it actually is secure and has
enough of an API to make a basic shopping cart site with it.
Cheers,
Andy
[1] http://www.protx.com/packages_hiw_website.asp
[2] http://www.worldpay.com/business/content.php?page=pricing2&c=UK
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_mean
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(statistics)
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB
Hi,
There appears to be a widespread aircon failure in Telehouse
Docklands where all of Bitfolk's servers are hosted. At least two
suites are affected, with ambient temperature now over 38 degrees C.
This has been reported upstream of course and I will let you know
when I have more information.
If it gets much worse it may become necessary to shut things down
to prevent damage. I hope it will not come to that.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB
Hi Jan,
I hope you don't mind me posting this back to the list. I got the
feeling you intended it to go there.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:00:26PM -0000, Jan Henkins wrote:
> I've had a play with CaCERT's stuff (free, see http://www/cacert.org)
> which do work well enough not to upset FF3, at least as far as I can see.
> Only downside is all certs they give out has a default expiry set to 6
> months, which can be a bit of a pain. Have you tried this route?
CAcert's root certificate is not present in Mozilla Firefox yet so I
don't know how it is working for you, unless you have told your
Firefox to import it or else your OS packaged it.
See: http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/InclusionStatus
Note the lack of inclusion for Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox or
Safari.[1]
What percentage of hits to {lists,panel,tools}.bitfolk.com do you
think come from Debian / Ubuntu / Gentoo / CentOS / Mandriva desktop
users?
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB
[1] I'm not criticising CAcert; I believe their goal is impossible.
I'm just stating reality.
Hi, in case you have noticed some certificate changes:
https://panel.bitfolk.com/ got a new SSL certificate of the type
that costs money and Firefox likes, as opposed to the ones that are
free and it doesn't which is what it had before.
After some complaints I also converted http://lists.bitfolk.com/ to
https, again of the pay-so-we-like-it variety.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB
