En/na A.D.F. ha escrit: > Xan wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I found >> http://www.rkblog.rk.edu.pl/w/p/cherokee-and-lighttpdf-django-scgi-benchmark/ >> >> comparing lighttpd and cherokee (I think the two best web servers). > > Argh ! > By definition lighttpd and cherokee can't be compared fairly > because the first has a version of 1.4.16 (and soon 1.5.0) > whereas the second has not reached version 0.6.0 yet.
Yes, I understand that perhaps cherokee could be more slower than ligttpd, but be honest if we don't prove it, we cant' say it ;-). I hear that 0.6 is very faster than 0.5 so maybe it's more faster than lightpd (?) > > I expect that cherokee is somewhat slower than lighttpd > when there are many parallel connections > (it depends a lot on which OS you are running them, > which OS system calls are available, i.e. poll, epoll, kqueue, > sendfile, etc.). > > Anyway I guess that an "almost" fair comparison could be performed > by using the same poll method, number of file descriptors > and number of threads / processes, etc., i.e.: > > # > # Cherokee > # > server!max_fds = 1024 > server!thread_number = 5 > server!poll_method = "poll" > > # > # Lighttpd > # > server.max-fds = 1024 > server.max-worker = 5 > server.event-handler = "poll" > > >> Can you compare it with official benchmarks? I'm refering to update >> benchmarks in official web page. > > Right now, official benchmarks don't specify test conditions, > so they should be redone in the right way; > anyway any serious benchmark > (done / repeated for each possibile combination of above main settings) > is time expensive because it should be performed on many OS > (i.e. FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux 2.4, Linux 2.6, Sun Solaris, etc.) too. > > Alvaro could say something more on this. > For starting, a work could be done in Solaris. I hear that alvaro has a job in Sun and perhaps Sun and cherokee could see "what fast cherokee could be". It could be a promotion for cherokee and Sun. >> I think a good server has to provide good benchmarks > > Maybe should provide ... :-), Apache does not provide > official benchmarks. Yes, and I think they are wrong: by now Apache drops the number of hosts that use it. The numerical evidences are the best. And the benchmarks could show us how best is a server (a part of other characteristics like features) > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Why don't you ask people who made benchmarks that included Cherokee > to repeat them with latest versions and to post an email > on Cherokee mailing lists ? > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > http://sys3.es/migue/DEC/Trabajo/ Perhaps a link into cherokee web page could be a good starting. Links to benchmarks between cherokee and other web servers thanks, Xan. > > > NOTE: the latest developed version can always be found here: > > http://www.cherokee-project.com/download/trunk/ > _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://cherokee-project.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
