Toby Corkindale wrote:
(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/
)
Thanks for your update. but it doesn't help on the benchmark since they
are run on the same condition. so 5.7 is really better than 5.8 under siege.
Thanks.
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.
_______________________________________________
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/
