Joshua Chamas wrote:
>
> mod_caucho
> used to look a lot faster, but my testing methodology changed.
> I used to take the results of the second benchmark run, and
> publish those, but this time only ran the -test for minor
> caching after starting resin ( & tomcat ). So, I'm gue
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Philip Mak wrote:
> And sorry for my newbie-ish question, but what is the difference
> between "mod_perl handler" and "Apache::Registry mod_perl"?
http://perl.apache.org/guide/performance.html#Apache_Registry_PerlHandler_vs_
including the benchmarks
___
Perrin Harkins wrote:
>
> > I do feel that compile time matters, but really with 60 seconds
> > and high MaxRequestsPerChild, these systems are getting plenty
> > of compiling caching.
>
> The thing is, if mod_caucho takes 5 seconds the first time it hits each
> template, but is the fastest afte
> I do feel that compile time matters, but really with 60 seconds
> and high MaxRequestsPerChild, these systems are getting plenty
> of compiling caching.
The thing is, if mod_caucho takes 5 seconds the first time it hits each
template, but is the fastest afterwards, these numbers don't give a ve
Perrin Harkins wrote:
>
> > mod_caucho
> > used to look a lot faster, but my testing methodology changed.
> > I used to take the results of the second benchmark run, and
> > publish those, but this time only ran the -test for minor
> > caching after starting resin ( & tomcat ). S
Good work as usual, Joshua.
> mod_caucho
> used to look a lot faster, but my testing methodology changed.
> I used to take the results of the second benchmark run, and
> publish those, but this time only ran the -test for minor
> caching after starting resin ( & tomcat ). So, I'
Good work as usual, Joshua.
> mod_caucho
> used to look a lot faster, but my testing methodology changed.
> I used to take the results of the second benchmark run, and
> publish those, but this time only ran the -test for minor
> caching after starting resin ( & tomcat ). So, I'
Philip Mak wrote:
>
> One thing caught my eye; how come "mod_perl handler" (808.4 hits per
> second) performed better than "HTML static" (768.2 hits per second)?
>
Here are my comments on this from the original post:
HTML static
for the first time, looks slower on my system than mod_perl.
One thing caught my eye; how come "mod_perl handler" (808.4 hits per
second) performed better than "HTML static" (768.2 hits per second)?
And sorry for my newbie-ish question, but what is the difference
between "mod_perl handler" and "Apache::Registry mod_perl"?
Hey,
The latest Hello World benchmarks at available at:
http://www.chamas.com/bench/hello.tar.gz
To reproduce the BELOW results on your platform, for
whatever tests are available, run:
./bench.pl -test
./bench.pl -version -time=60
--Josh
DISCLAIMER: these benchmarks test only what they te
10 matches
Mail list logo
