(Apologies for top-posting.. have momentarily lost the option to change quoting styles it seems..)
Fayland, I was looking at the benchmarks that you linked, and was just wondering which version of Perl you're running against? (CentOS 5 was one of the operating systems that came with the badly-patched Perl with the slow bless performance.. although I'm sure it's been patched by now? ie. http://blog.vipul.net/2008/08/24/redhat-perl-what-a-tragedy/ ) Cheers, Toby ----- Original Message ----- From: Fayland Lam <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:56:36 +1000 (EST) Subject: [Catalyst] Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8 I'm wondering if someone here did a benchmark between Catalyst 5.7 and 5.8 here is the result from our server: http://scsys.co.uk:8001/34323 the background is Catalyst 5.7011 VS Catalyst 5.80013 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz RAM: 4G OS: Centos5 from the top, each httpd takes 20M more RAM in 5.8 compared with 5.7 5.7 PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 22979 apache 16 0 167m 142m 4248 S 17.0 3.5 0:06.07 httpd 5.8 PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 24813 apache 15 0 190m 165m 4000 S 15.6 4.1 0:02.56 httpd in this case, I really can't let my boss agree me to upgrade the Catalyst. is it normal? any thoughts? Thanks. -- Fayland Lam // http://www.fayland.org/ _______________________________________________ List: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ _______________________________________________ List: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
