Brian Pane wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >gregames 2002/06/03 11:05:50 > > > > Modified: specweb99/specweb99-2.0 mod_specweb99.c > > > > BTW, does anyone have SPECweb results for 2.0 that they're > able to discuss?
Not that can be published according to the SPEC rules, or are worth publishing for that matter. You have to run the thing for a really long time to meet the rules, and of course the server machine becomes a basket case if you give it enough workload. So I cut the run time parameters way down to maintain my sanity while doing development, which invalidates the results. But I can mention that my very unofficial mini-SPECweb99 runs with the client and server both on my ThinkPad with 100% "standard dynamic GETs"* show that prefork is the fastest, worker is about 1% slower, and leader is about another 1.5% slower. This is a noticeable improvement from when I started on specweb - worker was maybe 10% slower at that time, and leader had a compile error. If I were running the client & server on separate boxes, the differences would probably be larger. Greg * the standard dynamic GETs wrap a few lines of dynamically generated html around a static file. These make up 12.5% of the official SPECweb99 workload; 70% is pure static requests; the remainder consists of more CPU intensive types of dynamic requests.