Jarrod Slick wrote:
All tests will be performed on localhost.
I did not want to comment since I am not an Apache nor LiteSpeed performance
expert,
but I rather suspect that will invalidate any results you get. At least it will
make it
much harder to get any kind of consistent results.
--
On Jan 15, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Tommy M. McGuire wrote:
Jarrod Slick wrote:
All tests will be performed on localhost.
I did not want to comment since I am not an Apache nor LiteSpeed
performance expert,
but I rather suspect that will invalidate any results you get. At
least it will make
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Jarrod Slick jar...@e-sensibility.com wrote:
I'm curious -- why do you think that the results will be inconsistent? If
anything I would be inclined to think that using localhost would improve
consistency as extraneous variables like network congestion at the
On Jan 15, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Jarrod Slick jar...@e-sensibility.com
wrote:
I'm curious -- why do you think that the results will be
inconsistent? If
anything I would be inclined to think that using localhost would
improve
consistency as
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Jarrod Slick jar...@e-sensibility.com wrote:
What about having a private VLAN between a testing machine and the apache
machine. I suppose that would solve the resource separation problem between
the benchmarking tool and the web server. Can you think of any
On Jan 15, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Jarrod Slick jar...@e-sensibility.com
wrote:
What about having a private VLAN between a testing machine and the
apache
machine. I suppose that would solve the resource separation
problem between
the
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Jarrod Slick jar...@e-sensibility.comwrote:
[ ... ]
And another question: how would you do it differently? Sure, in an ideal
world I could assemble my own botnet and then blast my corporate network
with a gigabit of distributed traffic multiple times for each
Jarrod Slick wrote:
On Jan 15, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Tommy M. McGuire wrote:
Jarrod Slick wrote:
All tests will be performed on localhost.
I did not want to comment since I am not an Apache nor LiteSpeed
performance expert,
but I rather suspect that will invalidate any results you get. At
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Jarrod Slick jar...@e-sensibility.comwrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:47 AM, Scott Gifford wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Jarrod Slick jar...@e-sensibility.comwrote:
Apache Users,
As some of you may or may not know a fairly prominent commercial
Basic query, is LiteSpeed an open source ? Can we write our own plugins
equivalent to Apache modules which will talk to LiteSpeed ?
Thanks in advance.
-A
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Scott Gifford
sgiff...@suspectclass.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Jarrod Slick
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Scott Gifford sgiff...@suspectclass.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Jarrod Slick jar...@e-sensibility.com
wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:47 AM, Scott Gifford wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Jarrod Slick jar...@e-sensibility.com
wrote:
Sounds interesting,
You may also want to test things like requesting protected resources (basic,
digest)...
Maybe some other things like WebDAV (of all servers support it),...
~Jorge
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Jarrod Slick jar...@e-sensibility.comwrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:47 AM,
Apache Users,
As some of you may or may not know a fairly prominent commercial
webserver, LiteSpeed, claims to outperform even a well configured
Apache 2.2.x installation by orders of magnitude. They have some
internal benchmarks that appear to back this up, but, being a natural
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Jarrod Slick jar...@e-sensibility.comwrote:
Apache Users,
As some of you may or may not know a fairly prominent commercial webserver,
LiteSpeed, claims to outperform even a well configured Apache 2.2.x
installation by orders of magnitude. They have some
On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:47 AM, Scott Gifford wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Jarrod Slick jar...@e-sensibility.com
wrote:
Apache Users,
As some of you may or may not know a fairly prominent commercial
webserver, LiteSpeed, claims to outperform even a well configured
Apache 2.2.x
15 matches
Mail list logo
