>> Well the http tuning of string handling is a known factor of >> optimization
You're right - nothing new about optimizing string handling - just doing it >> BTW, if you post these benchmarks on the HTTPd-dev list, should I assume you'll give ASF your optimized & tuned algorithms ? I wouldn't assume anything at this point - however if you remember correctly we did give the ASF mod_gzip (last time I checked even Google was compressing their output), however there will be an open source contribution at some point. >> Do you known that IBM does some nice optimization using FRCA on its Apache 2.0 implementation on iSeries Great - where are the benchmarks, as I said in my earlier post what's the differentiator between 1.x with 66% of the market and 2.x with 0% of the market? Remember your audience - it either has to make me money or save me money. If I'm going to implement 2.x then I should be able to see a return on the time I've invested either through a hardware/performance improvement or productivity. We all know why 2.x is struggling - the bar was set with 1.x and 2.x failed to move it more than about 1 inch. Peter -----Original Message----- From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 8:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down, solutions please Peter J. Cranstone a écrit : > There is no flame - just a couple of points and a request for data. > > >>>If you want to improve something, you should provide solutions, > > not critics > > Certainly - early next year you will see them. Here are some current > performance stats with some new technology we're working on. > > > Configuration Tool Elapsed Time > (sec’s) Data Transfer Rate > (KB/sec) Requests per Second Requests per > Minute Performance Gain > Factor > Apache Apache Bench 38.735 882.92 2581.64 154,898 1.0 > Cyclone Proxy Cache > + > Apache Apache Bench 15.663 2387.79 6384.47 383,068 2.47 > Apache Zeus Bench 39.961 855.83 2502.44 150,146.4 1.0 > Squid > + > Apache Zeus Bench 28.910 1314.42 3459.01 207,540.6 1.38 > Cyclone Proxy Cache > + > Apache Zeus Bench 15.176 2464.42 6589.35 395,361 2.63 > Cyclone Proxy Cache > (Tuned Parser) > + > Apache Zeus Bench 13.505 2769.34 7404.67 444,280.2 2.95 > Cyclone Proxy Cache > (4 Tuned Functions) > + > Apache Zeus Bench 13.006 2875.6 7688.76 461,325.6 3.07 > > These numbers were obtained using a single processor Itanium® 1.0Ghz > (Madison) chip. By tuning certain HTTP string handling functions we have > seen up to a factor 11 performance improvement. > > Our next benchmark is due by year end. Essentially we will be adding one > more line for the stats above. The goal is very simple - transmit greater > than 1 million requests in a single minute on a single processor Itanium > 1Ghz machine. A factor 10 performance improvement. A single processor > Deerfield Itanium® chip costs $744 - our solution doesn't require a current > OS, nor hard drive to operate - it scales to multiple chips and can support > a cache of up to 1 terabyte of RAM > > >>>Revolution is for new players, carefully crafted evolutions are for the > > Mass > > Yep… Support for a 1TB cache, no hard drive, no current OS required, and > the ability to pump data faster than any other platform on the planet should > do the trick. Only thing left is to get the Itanium® platform into a single > 1RU box at sub $5,000. I doubt we will have to wait long for that. > > Long live the revolution > > Regards, Well the http tuning of string handling is a known factor of optimization, just study tomcat 3.2, 3.3 and Coyote 1.1 and you'll that it could still be optimized. BTW, if you post these benchmarks on the httpd-dev list, should I assume you'll give ASF your optimized&tuned algorythms ? Do you known that IBM does some nice optimization using FRCA on its Apache 2.0 implementation on iSeries ? A proof that Apache 2.0 is a great platform for such games ;)
