flawless. it works now perfectly. no more disk buffering.

what i wanted to ask. regarding that 64 number:

fastcgi_buffers 64

buffers per second. what is the logic of it ? i mean ... how does it
improve performance or decrease it?



Gabriel Ramuglia wrote:
> If you're seeing buffering to disk instead of to ram (and you don't
> want the i/o penalty of buffering to disk), then the ram buffer is not
> sufficient. I would increase it so long as you have sufficient ram to
> do so.
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Stefanita Rares Dumitrescu
> <katmai@keptprivate.com> wrote:
>> fastcgi_buffers 64 64k;
>> fastcgi_buffer_size 64k;
>>
>>
>> i made the following mods in the fastcgi section, and waiting for results.
>> from what i understand:
>>
>> fastcgi_buffers 64 64k;
>>
>> the first 64 is the number of buffers and the second is the buffer size, so
>> on a server that takes around 500 hits per second should i increase it, or
>> the value should be just fine ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Maxim Dounin wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 02:19:16PM +0100, Stefanita Rares Dumitrescu
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> fastcgi_max_temp_file_size 0;
>>>> This directive turns off fastcgi buffering according to the source code.
>>>>
>>>> i did this, and the buffer errors are gone. however, the pages load
>>>> very very slow. take about 5-10 seconds to load the page.
>>> As I already said, switching off disk buffering has it's cost. Without
>>> buffering backend processes will be busy for much longer time. There is no
>>> surprise that the same number of backend processes is no longer enough.
>>>
>>> Maxim Dounin
>>>
>>
>