Agreed too. In the end you can tune Apache far more better than the default compile options and really increase the amount of requests per second depending on the tests ;-) The Ubuntu version of Apache is not at all fully optimized, too. That's a curious example.
What i use for stressing is a tool called "siege". It has worked for me for years. But i shall take a look at the one developed by Cherokee people. http://freshmeat.net/projects/siege David (Kitai) Cruz 2009/5/18 Oli Warner <[email protected]> > Is there any well-established, respected benchmark for webservers out >> there? > > > The problem with any web server benchmarks is they rarely show true > real-world load patterns. > > Plenty show static content and because Cherokee can cache these, it's > naturally pretty damned fast. Great! I'm glad but it doesn't show other > important factors. I want to know if Django+SCGI+Cherokee is as fast as > Django+ModWSGI+Apache. Same goes for PHP+FastCGI+Cherokee vs > PHP+ModPHP+Apache. > > There are also a billion and five ways to tune the balls off Apache for > various tests, which might be a little unfair... But so is leaving it as a > stock install. The standard Ubuntu version of Apache isn't great for VPSes > for example (the main reason I'm using Cherokee) but it can be pulled back > to use less RAM. > > The same for Apache goes to Nginx. I remember when I saw the last set of > Cherokee benchmarks, a NginX user was saying he could make it a lot faster > than Cherokee. > > At the end of all this tweaking and arguing, we, the users, have no idea > what to pick. > > _______________________________________________ > Cherokee mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee > >
_______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
