Hello Ryan, First off, since I assume you sent this mail in good faith, I'd like to thank you for sharing it.
Having said that, I'd like to clarify that your test is completely misleading. You are comparing two very different scenarios, which as it couldn't be otherwise, draw very different results. You are actually comparing oranges an apples. If you wanted to do the proper test, you'd have to perform at least the following changes (there might be more, but since I do not know the configuration you used, I could not tell you for sure): - Enable GZip - Enable Front-Line Cache - Optional: Replace "List & Send" by "Static Cotent" - Optional: Set limit to reused connections and log flush intervals Benchmarks can be very interesting, and even revealing, when performed properly. However, they can also be quite misleading when they are conducted wrongly. In this case, you threw a few graphs that will confuse people - basically because, as everybody would expect, they are supposed to be comparing the same thing, when they are not. 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. > -- Greetings, alo http://www.octality.com/
_______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
