Well... You compared cherokee without GZIP to nginx with GZIP... And you're comparing a memory used by cache... It's a miss point.
Greetings, Jędrzej Nowak On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Ryan B <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm guessing any form of vps setup's would have issues with > benchmarking.. I was hardly going to run this on my home connection or > pay for a uber dedi. I'm not trying to play favourites, I'm just > comparing the difference between the 2 web servers running on my vps, > and its pretty obvious looking a long/short-term graphs, using the "oh > you're on a openvz/vps, therefore this doesn't count" card doesn't > hold. > > The graphs don't deviate much. The node isn't under any great load, > and it would show in the graphs (I could post longer 2-3-4 days but > they're pretty much the same). > > > 2011/5/25 Tony Zakula <[email protected]>: >>> Both web servers packages are compiled on ubuntu 11.04/openvz hosting. >> >> Using openvz hosting? That is not even a real test. There are so >> many variables, tweaks and adjustments when using OpenVZ that you >> could not possibly count on that bench mark even if you controlled the >> server. If you are using a hosting providers server, it makes it even >> more nebulous because they will be using their own controls. The >> memory and processing units are not even for real memory. With >> OpenVZ you can tweak those at will. >> >> The only way to get real benchmarks is on a real machine. >> >> Tony >> >> >> 2011/5/24 Jędrzej Nowak <[email protected]>: >>> Hmm >>> >>> You can easy compress things in cherokee too. Just enable it in >>> cherokee-admin ;-) >>> For "gzip static" like behaviour you need to enable flcache (with >>> PURGE support for your config). >>> >>> IOCache in cherokee is caching only plain files when you don't use >>> gzip... That's why. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Jędrzej Nowak >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Ryan B <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> This is static content (only http, and no php enabled), also using >>>> gzip-static.in nginx (cache-io doesn't quite cut it in cherokee) >>>> >>>> I found the cache too aggressive in cherokee, if I upload a newer file >>>> I'd still keep serving the the cached file for a while (I wasn't >>>> actually sure when it actually expired).. so I manually lowered the >>>> expiry time for the cache (900secs), performance dives :/ >>>> >>>> Okay a quick break down of the stats.. >>>> >>>> Nginx-generated traffic is cut in half (thanks to gzip-static) vs Cherokee >>>> Nginx: 118Mb Ram, Cherokee: 260Mb >>>> CPU: nginx is by-far using less, that race isn't even close. >>>> >>>> A break down, http://i.imgur.com/JVO1w.png >>>> >>>> Both web servers packages are compiled on ubuntu 11.04/openvz hosting. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cherokee mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cherokee mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > Cherokee mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee > _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
