Michael Vince wrote:
What I am trying to say here is you are expecting good performance out
of things like CGI/PHP and prefork,
Ok, did anybody read my initial post?
I'm NOT setting up a production machine. I'm NOT using PHP - it was
mentioned as a reason threaded apache is not widely used. I've run "ab
-n 100000 -c 100 http://localhost/"; where "http://localhost/"; references
a small static HTML file, served by apache 2.0.x. PHP was not even
included in both apache setups. I've run this on a 8-cpu Xeon beast (ok,
not really - 4 cpus, tried with hyperthreading on and off) and got
terrible performance. This performance is objectively low even by
itself, without any comparison with other operating systems (such as linux).
What I *am* doing now is looking for someone who has a 4 CPU or bigger
machine idle on which he/she can replicate this simple benchmark (it
really IS simple - you need apache20 port in default configuration -
everything's included) and confirm or contradict my results. I won't
tell exactly what my results are because: a) to encourage fairness and
b) because they are so ridiculously low that if I'm wrong I don't want
it to end up in mailing list archives for posterity :)
> Configuring a Apache server that has 'ready' 5 http daemons when
> its really expecting to do 100,000 requests and handle huge amounts
> of simultaneous connections just doesn't seem the right way to
> approach such setups and benchmark methods.
This has nothing to do with my original intent but I must reply. Under
the context of my "benchmark", you're practically saying that doing this
on Linux (and no, +/- 10 servers ready doesn't make a difference when
there are 100 simultaneous connections involved) is ok, but on FreeBSD
it isn't because of...what? Lack of objectivity?
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
