: -----Original Message----- : From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [SNIP] : > : > Here's some comparative numbers to chew on. : > : > One client and one server on 100Mbps network (cheapy : 100Base-T switch); : > 50 simulated users hitting 7 URLs 100 times with flood : (35,000 requests). : > : > mod_disk_cache: Requests: 35000 Time: 40.91 Req/Sec: 856.78 : > mod_mem_cache: Requests: 35000 Time: 54.90 Req/Sec: 637.81 : > no cache: Requests: 35000 Time: 54.86 Req/Sec: 638.81 : > squid: Requests: 35000 Time: 105.35 Req/Sec: 332.25 : > : > mod_disk_cache completely filled out the network at ~50% CPU usage. : > [Can't push through more than ~8MB/sec (~64Mb/sec) without GigE.] : > mod_mem_cache filled up the CPU but not the network : > [Poor scaling characteristics. It goes to 100% CPU with : just 5 users!] : : mod_mem_cache is broken then. It used to kick the pants off : of 'no cache' and mod_disk_cache.
.. Well, doesn't it depend upon the size of the data set. With 'ab', I guess that's possible that mod_mem_cache can beat mod_disk_cache - but with a dataset like SPECweb99, I'd really doubt if it can really do it. BTW, I wonder how mem_cache can significantly out-perform no-cache scenario - 'cause a good file system should buffer cache the most-accessed files, and there should be minimal perf. difference. -Madhu
