Hmm... maybe a re-use issue? Let me look.

On Nov 18, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:

> I can think or see anything in the actual request handling
> aspect that's any different from the original proposal,
> certainly nothing that would result in any sort of
> performance issue.
> 
> What MPM? Have you tried w/ 2.4.6?
> 
> On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <drugg...@primary.net> wrote:
> 
>> And... this is a bit discouraging, but as a comparison to the older UDS
>> patch....
>> 2.4.6 + original UDS patch:
>> Requests/sec:   5347.17
>> Requests/sec:   5102.16
>> Requests/sec:   5074.15
>> 
>> This is a sizable difference... Note that the current 2.4 backport
>> proposal was applied to 2.4.6 since that is what I tested the original
>> patch with (to keep everything apples to apples).
>> 
>> I'll jump in to take a look at this when time is available (next week?)
>> but would like to fish for any immediate thoughts in the mean time.
>> 
>> --
>> Daniel Ruggeri
>> 
>> On 11/18/2013 1:11 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>>> Oops - I copypasta'd the per-thread stats. Total stats for the test follow:
>>> httpd:
>>> Requests/sec:   4633.17
>>> Requests/sec:   4664.49
>>> Requests/sec:   4657.63
>>> 
>>> nginx:
>>> Requests/sec:   5701.16
>>> Requests/sec:   5798.08
>>> Requests/sec:   5584.60
>> 
> 

Reply via email to