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 >> >
