Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:07:26PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:05:27PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
>>
>>>Some performance results with mod_gz are available at
>>>http://webperf.org/a2/v25/
>>>(no core dumps.. pages look ok on a real browser while running test)
>>>I'm going to be re-running the tests for a longer period to see if
>>>there are memory leaks (as well as quantify/purify on it next week)
>>>
>>>brief summary:
>>> * numbers are based on pages going through mod-include
>>> * once of the runs looks a bit flaky.. and I'm re-running it
>>> * cpu usage (USR) is VERY high (from 100 without gz to 500)
>>> * page requests down 16% when using GZ
>>>
>
> What does this mean? Total bytes transferred? If so, then why only 16%
>
> The number of page requests should be constant, unless mod_gz introduces
> some kind of caching.
the number of concurrent requests are constant in all of these tests.
we have 50 processes (spread across 10 machines) doing GET's of a page.
when a page is retrived is GET's it again (and again..)
so if the page response is slower, then the pages/second will also be.
we have a more sophisticated comercial machine which can generate better
traffic, but it is core dumping at the moment so I can run't the tests through it.
>
>
>>> * page resposne times are slower with GZ, but have a lower deviation
>>>
>>The expectation is that the network bandwidth used should be much
>>lower. The tradeoff is that the CPU should get nailed. -- justin
>>
>
> Also: latency should increase and delivery time should decrease.
>
> cheers,
> -g
>
>
