Re: bad performance tux T9

[Ookhoi <ookhoi dds nl>]

Hi Irmund,

> On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 04:50:04PM +0100, Ookhoi wrote:
> > Hi Irmund,
> > I included cpuinfo and meminfo. Is there anything else I can provide?
> > I would like to stress again that T3 was fine (zero failed requests all
> > the time, and I use the same kernel config for compile), and this T9 is
> > not. The computer is a hp vectra something. The same happens at a compaq
> > dl 360 PIII 800.
> > 
> > Do you also use T9?
> > 
> thanks very much - quite interesting;
> I'm actually not using T9 but started some general tests a while
> ago since I'm preparing an article in the next weeks for a
> German Linux magazine related to Apache2.x
> tests until yet included thttpd, Apache 1.3.14-19/2.0x and khttpd;

I think khttpd is obsolete due to tux.
I'm also testing apache1.3, apache2.0 (and modperl, modperl2.0 and php),
squid, thtthp and tux to see how thy perform. Unfortunately tux T9 fails
for 50% of the requests, thttpd stalls for a amount of time when I hit
it hard with ab via localhost, apache1.3 is fine and I have some
problems compiling apache2.0.

Which version of thttpd do you use? I tried 20b I believe (the latest I
could find last saturday).
Do you also test modperl for 1.3, 2.0 and php?
Do you also test tux with the nics that support zerocopy and ip checksum
stuff?
What server/client/network do you use, and what client program (only
ab?)?

I'm interested in your article and I think other are too. Can you send
the url or the name and date of the magazine to us (the list)?
I'll send the results of my tests also to the list (can take some time
btw).

> regarding ab I'm a bit sceptical at all. i haven't looked into the source
> code but for me it looks like as localhost is anyway faster;

Well, I just test localhost for now because it is very easy to do and it
hits the webservers hard. I notice that ab takes more than 50% cpu, so a
test via network is better in the end.

	Ookhoi

> just made a new test with my Pentium II 400 MHz machine:
> Server Software:        Apache/1.3.19                                      
> Server Hostname:        localhost
> Server Port:            80
> Document Path:          /abtest.html
> Document Length:        14621 bytes
> Concurrency Level:      25
> Time taken for tests:   0.188 seconds
> Complete requests:      100
> Failed requests:        0
> Total transferred:      1553836 bytes
> HTML transferred:       1525540 bytes
> Requests per second:    531.91
> Transfer rate:          8265.09 kb/s received
> 
> and that makes me wonder too about the transfer rate.
> Anyway - I think mod_mmap_static in Apache will become obsolete
> with Tux or khttpd
> thanks again for the info
> 
> -- http://it97.dyn.dhs.org --
>  Irmund    Thum
> +49 179 6998564 
> +49 6374 992541