[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: bad performance tux T9



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;
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;
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





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index] []