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.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: > >> 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 skeptic, I >> wanted to test it out for myself. So I've agreed to pit Apache and >> LiteSpeed (as well as a few other webservers) against one another in >> benchmarking tests on a 2x Xeon 5520 machine. I, and hopefully others, will >> be configuring Apache. LiteSpeed will be configuring their product. >> > > What is the workload you are benchmarking? Static pages, PHP/mod_perl > code, CGI, etc.? Is the client a benchmark tool or a browser, and where on > the network is it relative to the server? How are you measuring performance > (page load times, requests/second, etc.)? > > -----Scott. > > > Scott, > > I'm open to suggestions on all fronts, but as it stands we were going to do > the following with the ab tool: > > -small static pages test > -large static pages test > -hello world php test > > And we were going to also benchmark a wordpress/joomla site in a more > "real-world" load simulation test using the tool "siege". > > All tests will be performed on localhost. > > There are some more details present in the WHT thread I originally linked, > also. > > Thanks, > Jarrod > >
