From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 19 15:50:34 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B78F16A561 for ; Fri, 19 May 2006 15:50:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ivoras@fer.hr) Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr (lara.cc.fer.hr [161.53.72.113]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9457A43D69 for ; Fri, 19 May 2006 15:50:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ivoras@fer.hr) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.cc.fer.hr [127.0.0.1]) by lara.cc.fer.hr (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k4JFnxp0074605; Fri, 19 May 2006 17:49:59 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ivoras@fer.hr) Message-ID: <446DE927.2060909@fer.hr> Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 17:49:59 +0200 From: Ivan Voras User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Vince 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> In-Reply-To: <446DE1F2.4020602@thebeastie.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (Another) simple benchmark X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 15:50:37 -0000 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?