At 3:16 PM +0200 4/20/02, Gerald Richter wrote:
>That are really a lot of hits...
Do you ah, Yahoo! :-)
>Did you use any cacheing of the output with Mason and/or Embperl?
Yes for Embperl, but I don't know for Mason. That was the first time
I had installed Mason and used it.
>If for
>examples
At 9:39 PM -0400 4/19/02, Cameron McBride wrote:
>Perhaps this is an obvious note that you caught, but you mentioned
>turning on debugging. You didn't do this for the *actual* test, did
>you? I understand that would have a performace effect. (you
>probably didn't, but I just thought I would me
Hi Marcus,
The top label numbers are the concurrent connections test and the
data number are how many request per second the machine could output.
All the test were done with Apache Benchmark.
Brian
At 8:19 PM -0400 4/19/02, Marcus Doemling wrote:
>What unit are your performance numbers? I
Hi,
At 5:37 AM +0200 4/19/02, Gerald Richter wrote:
> > Any idea on what is going on and why the Embperl numbers are so low?
>> I added debugging to make sure the pages were being cached and after
>> the warm up the all showed 100% cache hits. The surprise to the
> > group was the SPP number
Hello,
I am part of a small group of engineers that is looking in to
replacing our current proprietary template technology. We are
looking at mod_perl with some template layers and PHP. I have been
using Embperl since the early days (before 0.20-beta) and would love
to use it, but the pe
