Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This question already has an answer here:

We're hosting 10 websites with (most of them using Drupal 6 or Drupal 7) using nginx + php-fpm. Our VPS is low end (only 1GB of RAM with 64 bit OS and limited CPU). The amount of visitors is moderate to low, but simultaneous traffic in many of them is enough to get timeouts.

1) Is it correct to use php-fpm in this scenario, or it would be better to go back to Apache and mod_php?

2) Is it better to keep a fpm pool for each site, or in this extreme condition using one pool for many sites would make any difference? (Security issues aside)

3) Is there a formula for calculating the best values for 'pm.max_children', 'pm.start_servers', 'pm.min_spare_servers', 'pm.max_spare_servers' and APC settings (enabled using default settings under Ubuntu 12.04 LTS)?

In general, any recommendations about running php-fpm with low resources would be greatly appreciated.

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Falcon Momot, Ward, Iain, Jenny D, Nathan C Jul 11 '13 at 11:45

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

1 Answer 1

Check out this article for creating distinct pool for each site: http://www.makina-corpus.org/blog/install-drupal-php-fpm-fastcgi-apache-and-chroot-php-fpm

advise I get at #httpd is that mod_php is old school and will not scale the way that fastcgi and php-fpm will. You are moving in the right direction.

More memory always a good thing if you can afford it. Many providers will let you resize a vm in place.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.