> RESULTS:
> 
>     - Results are "Requests per second".  I'm not sure how to
>       interpret the numbers on an absolute scale, but the relative
>       comparisons should be somewhat meaningful.
> 
>     - Each test was conducted 5 times and the average is shown.
> 
>     - "ab" was used from the same machine as the web servers because
>       something "strange" happened when I ran it on another machine.
>       (I'll send a separate email regarding this.)
> 
> 
>                    1000 requests, 1 concurrent
>                       ab -n 1000 -c 1 <URL>
>                       ----------------------
>               Test1      Test1(b)     Test2     Test3    Test4    Test5
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache w/     
> modperl/      852.86     99.53        217.25    16.96    78.12    18.32
> EmbPerl          
>           
> Apache w/     836.47    100.06        560.78    16.15    98.76    18.80
> PHP          
> 
> AOLServer     100.01     99.72        100.06    12.89   156.30    14.29
> 
>           
> 
>                    1000 requests, 10 concurrent
>                       ab -n 1000 -c 10 <URL>
>                       ----------------------
> 
>               Test1     Test1(b)      Test2     Test3    Test4     Test5
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache w/     
> modperl/      890.37    248.00        262.47    30.31    158.50    45.17
> EmbPerl       
> 
> Apache w/     957.30    492.55        559.71    23.81    268.34    34.64
> PHP          
> 
> AOLServer     758.54    227.76        816.65     5.97    141.19     7.45

Well, I think it shows nicely that mod_perl-EmbPerl and PHP are in the
same ballpark.  This has always been my impression as well.  PHP tends to
be quicker on short simple scripts which your results also show while PHP
3 was not very efficient at handling large loops.  This is reflected in
your Test 3/5 numbers there where PHP is a little bit slower.  But,
certainly not by a factor of 10-20 as some people like to say.  And this
looping deficiency has been fixed in PHP 4.  PHP 4 also brings an optional
interpreted script cache along with an optimizer which can help out with
really complex and time-consuming scripts.

By the way, PHP 4 also works as a module in aolserver now (Zeus coming 
soon).  Would be interesting to see if PHP could beat aolserver's built-in
tcl engine.

One thing that might be interesting to see would be the peak memory and
cpu usage for each one.  That would give some indication of scaleability
issues.  I have no idea how PHP will fare here.  ;)  Some improvements
were made in PHP 4 in this respect though.

-Rasmus

Reply via email to