Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 09:09:04 -0400 From: Lucas Holt <luke@foolishgames.com> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> Cc: performance@freebsd.org, Michael Vince <mv@thebeastie.org> Subject: Re: (Another) simple benchmark Message-ID: <BD967927-49D5-4AFC-AC43-C52538EFAEE9@foolishgames.com> In-Reply-To: <446DE927.2060909@fer.hr> References: <446CCE1C.1050200@fer.hr> <446CD873.9080903@stevehodgson.co.uk> <446CE6CE.50009@fer.hr> <446D8994.3070709@thebeastie.org> <446D9DEE.4050300@fer.hr> <446DE1F2.4020602@thebeastie.org> <446DE927.2060909@fer.hr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 19, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Ivan Voras wrote: > Michael Vince wrote: > >> What I am trying to say here is you are expecting good performance >> out of things like CGI/PHP and prefork, > > Ok, did anybody read my initial post? > > I'm NOT setting up a production machine. I'm NOT using PHP - it was > mentioned as a reason threaded apache is not widely used. I've run > "ab -n 100000 -c 100 http://localhost/" where "http://localhost/" > references a small static HTML file, served by apache 2.0.x. PHP > was not even included in both apache setups. I've run this on a 8- > cpu Xeon beast (ok, not really - 4 cpus, tried with hyperthreading > on and off) and got terrible performance. This performance is > objectively low even by itself, without any comparison with other > operating systems (such as linux). > > What I *am* doing now is looking for someone who has a 4 CPU or > bigger machine idle on which he/she can replicate this simple > benchmark (it really IS simple - you need apache20 port in default > configuration - everything's included) and confirm or contradict my > results. I won't tell exactly what my results are because: a) to > encourage fairness and b) because they are so ridiculously low that > if I'm wrong I don't want it to end up in mailing list archives for > posterity :) > > > > Configuring a Apache server that has 'ready' 5 http daemons when > > its really expecting to do 100,000 requests and handle huge amounts > > of simultaneous connections just doesn't seem the right way to > > approach such setups and benchmark methods. > > This has nothing to do with my original intent but I must reply. > Under the context of my "benchmark", you're practically saying that > doing this on Linux (and no, +/- 10 servers ready doesn't make a > difference when there are 100 simultaneous connections involved) is > ok, but on FreeBSD it isn't because of...what? Lack of objectivity? I think most people just want you to use the exact same configuration file on both systems and verify that both use the same pre-compiled options as well. Probably the best thing to do is build from source on both linux and freebsd with the same options. Make sure the defaults for each system are fair as well. Then use the same config file or as close as possible on both operating systems. Otherwise, you're not testing the same thing. If you were testing against another architecture like say windows, then you would need to use the default worker type for windows. Lucas Holt Luke@FoolishGames.com ________________________________________________________ FoolishGames.com (Jewel Fan Site) JustJournal.com (Free blogging) FoolishGames.net (Enemy Territory site)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BD967927-49D5-4AFC-AC43-C52538EFAEE9>