Jason Kissinger wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Were you able to verify our test results?
>
sorry ..
I've been out of my office for a while.
I'll have a look as soon as I get back in.
--Ian
> -Jason
>
>
>
> >Ian Holsman wrote:
> >
> >> Jess M. Holle wrote:
> >>
> >>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 05:46:11PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I'm really beginning to suspect a borked sendfile implementation. Suggest
> that you try disabling sendfile on solaris and repeat the test.
Solaris 8 doesn't have sendfile (sendfilev). I think Solaris 9 as
well as really re
At 04:07 PM 8/29/2002, you wrote:
client: SunOS 5.8 Generic_108528-15 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-1000
>test1: wget http://w2k/8mbfile == 80KB/s
>test2: wget http://w2k/webapp/8mbfile == 1MB/s
>
>client: Linux 2.4.18-3smp
>test1: wget http://w2k/8mbfile == 8MB/s
>test2: wget http://w2k/webapp/8mb
Ian Holsman wrote:
> Jess M. Holle wrote:
>
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> At 11:54 AM 8/29/2002, Jess M. Holle wrote:
>>>
Jason Kissinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) responded:
> Windows clients hitting Solaris servers does not exhibit this
> problem. Only Solaris clients hitti
Jess M. Holle wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> At 11:54 AM 8/29/2002, Jess M. Holle wrote:
>>
>>> Jason Kissinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) responded:
>>>
Windows clients hitting Solaris servers does not exhibit this
problem. Only Solaris clients hitting Windows servers. I'm unsure
. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-httpd/post?protectID=125212253105056135218149051077181241248144166046039109074>>
*Date:* Thu Aug 29, 2002 12:22 pm
*Subject:* Re: Apache 1.3.x and 2.0.x Performance Issue
At 11:54 AM 8/29/2002, Jess M. H
Note:
wget was used in all measurements.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
It would be nice if the client used was somehting like 'ab' - which comes
with apache ran at 1-100 concurrency; or something like fetch, curl or
wget to make the client identical on all platforms.
Dw
On Tue, 27 Aug 200
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 11:54 AM 8/29/2002, Jess M. Holle wrote:
>
>> Jason Kissinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) responded:
>>
>>> Windows clients hitting Solaris servers does not exhibit this
>>> problem. Only Solaris clients hitting Windows servers. I'm unsure
>>> if other UN*X have this p
At 11:54 AM 8/29/2002, Jess M. Holle wrote:
>Jason Kissinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) responded:
>
>>Windows clients hitting Solaris servers does not exhibit this problem.
>>Only Solaris clients hitting Windows servers. I'm unsure if other UN*X
>>have this problem, Linux and Windows does not. And S
clients hitting Windows servers. I'm unsure if other UN*X
have this problem, Linux and Windows does not. And Solaris client
hitting anything but Windows works fine. We have some HP/UX boxes that
I could build wget on to test as clients, if that would be helpful.
Jess M. Holle wrote:
>
It would be nice if the client used was somehting like 'ab' - which comes
with apache ran at 1-100 concurrency; or something like fetch, curl or
wget to make the client identical on all platforms.
Dw
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Jess M. Holle wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> > Jess M. Holle wrote:
> >
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Jess M. Holle wrote:
> * recent Apache 1.3.x on Windows:
> o client on Solaris (8): 80K/sec
> o client on Linux or Windows: 8MB/sec
> * recent Apache 2.0.x on Windows:
> o client on Solaris (8): 120K/sec
> o client on Linux or
Holle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 4:30 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Apache 1.3.x and 2.0.x Performance Issue
>
>
>Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>Jess M. Holle wrote:
>
>Both Apache 1.3.x and 2.0.x suffer a severe perfomance issue when the
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 4:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apache 1.3.x and 2.0.x Performance Issue
Ian Holsman wrote:
Jess M. Holle wrote:
Both Apache 1.3.x and 2.0.x suffer a severe perfomance issue when the server is on
Windows and the client is Solaris (and perhaps
Ian Holsman wrote:
Jess M. Holle
wrote:
Both Apache 1.3.x and 2.0.x suffer a severe perfomance
issue when the server is on Windows and the client is Solaris (and perhaps
others).
Before you stop reading this as simply "we know Windows does not perform
well", I should point out that this
Jess M. Holle wrote:
> Both Apache 1.3.x and 2.0.x suffer a severe perfomance issue when the
> server is on Windows and the client is Solaris (and perhaps others).
>
> Before you stop reading this as simply "we know Windows does not perform
> well", I should point out that this does not occur w
Both Apache 1.3.x and 2.0.x suffer a severe perfomance issue when the server
is on Windows and the client is Solaris (and perhaps others).
Before you stop reading this as simply "we know Windows does not perform
well", I should point out that this does not occur when the client is Windows
or L
17 matches
Mail list logo
