Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 23:47:10 +0300 (EEST) From: Giorgos Verigakis <verigak@algol.vtrip-ltd.com> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Zope's performance issues Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0108212334190.27572-100000@algol.vtrip-ltd.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.30.0108211539240.74527-100000@niwun.pair.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Mike Silbersack wrote: > The current scheme causes problems with TIME_WAIT recycling, which may > cause long delays in establishing new connections if you're connection to > the same host rapidly enough to cause TIME_WAIT recycling to be an issue. > This is why there's a huge spike only when you get to 1000 hits/second. No, maybe I wasn't clear. I didn't get 1000 hits/sec, what I said was that I measured the time a page needs to be loaded after the program had made 1000 hits to Zope (so that it would be a bit a loaded). Also I don't know if this is caused by TIME_WAIT because when I do a netstat I don't see a lot of connections on TIME_WAIT Actually I think it has to do with the threads library (see my other mail on that) > > There could be other reasons, of course, but this will overshadow the > others. I tested your test program with apache, and the change is > noticeable. So, hold off on further testing until later this week. > > Mike "Silby" Silbersack > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.30.0108212334190.27572-100000>