Hi Colm...
Slainte!...
Cead mile failte romhat!
Go raibh maith agat!
Wow... I believe everything you are saying... and
please don't take this the wrong way... but I'm not
sure a test that only runs for 1.1 second and 1000
requests with 100 clients being launched ( on the
same machine? ) is a good way to get accurate results
especially in the TPS ( Transactions Per Second )
numbers. The rounding errors alone could be huge
with so little time on the clock.
Try same test for a reasonable amount of TIME and
see if it's any different.
Rasmus recent benchmark shows the EXACT
OPPOSITE and I think you have certainly just proved
that something is seriously wrong with THAT test...
but I'm not sure yours is the end-all be-all proof either.
When I get the chance... I'll run the same ( 6 hour )
benchmark against 2.0.47 that I did sometime back
for 2.0.40 and see what that says.
At that time... I did the same 'out of the box' thing
you just did and got the EXACT OPPOSITE results.
Apache 2.0 prefork was about twice as SLOW as
1.3 prefork... not twice as fast.
Man, this is confusing.
( Pionta Guiness le do thoil... fer sure )
Later... ( Slainte )...
Kevin
In a message dated 11/17/2003 4:17:57 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 04:40:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Got any real numbers?
Completely unconfigured, out of the box configs;
Apache 1.3.29;
Concurrency Level: 100
Time taken for tests: 2.54841 seconds
Complete requests: 1000
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Total transferred: 1883090 bytes
HTML transferred: 1466192 bytes
Requests per second: 486.66 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 205.484 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 2.055 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent
requests)
Transfer rate: 894.47 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 0 1.8 0 13
Processing: 17 193 38.7 196 297
Waiting: 17 192 38.7 196 296
Total: 23 194 37.8 196 297
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 196
66% 201
75% 206
80% 209
90% 223
95% 252
98% 272
99% 280
100% 297 (longest request)
Apache 2.0.48 (using prefork):
Concurrency Level: 100
Time taken for tests: 1.110512 seconds
Complete requests: 1000
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Total transferred: 1909712 bytes
HTML transferred: 1460368 bytes
Requests per second: 900.49 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 111.051 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 1.111 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent
requests)
Transfer rate: 1678.51 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 3 3.2 3 13
Processing: 21 100 14.1 103 142
Waiting: 3 96 14.2 100 142
Total: 32 103 11.9 106 143
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 106
66% 107
75% 107
80% 108
90% 109
95% 110
98% 114
99% 123
100% 143 (longest request)
That's completely unconfigured. Apache 2 is *much* more configurable,
and it's possible to make things much faster. It's not just faster,
it's capable of scaling much better. Two weeks ago I was sustaining
8,000 simultaneous connections and throughing out a about 300 Meg
of traffic. On the same hardware, 1.3 would never get close to that.
I used to get problems when dealing with a few hundred connections.
And before you ask; pre-fork. Btw, it's not as if you can just
disregard the other mpm's. They exist, and they are much faster
again than prefork. You can't just ignore progress because it
doesn't work on every platform.
There are other ways in which 2.0 is much better, mod_*_cache are good
examples of how it's possible for admins to serve requests a lot faster,
especially if they have slow disks and so on.
> Last time I checked... 'sendfile' was not available on all platforms.
> What would the numbers look like on those platforms?
Much much much better. I turn off sendfile on purpose, because TCP
checksum offloading problems with my Gigabit NIC's means I can't use
it for IPv6.
The friday before last, I was shipping 440Megabit's of traffic from one
machine using httpd. That was using pre-fork, without sendfile. The notion
that 2.0 does not outperform 1.3 is laughable, it does.
Now it may underperform it in some configurations, and a lot of people
report that they see slowdown with dynamic content, especially php,
but that's not the same thing as saying 2.0 is slower. I'm telling you,
it's certainly not in my configuration.
--
Colm MacC�rthaigh Public Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
