Hmm, OK but the headline figures really do look negative. The jump for page transaction unsucceful from 20.51% to 34.7%, even if the errors start later, doesn't really bode well does it?
I assume the test was the same number of requests and so on, so I'd consider a reduction in the overall succesful number of completions to be a bad thing, not a good thing?? david ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 1:02 PM Subject: RE: Benchmark: 29 vs 30 > > From: David Reid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 22 December 2001 13:57 > > > The transaction stats were what jumped out at me - 7% increase in failed > > connections doesn't sound good to me :( But, then maybe I'm reading that > > wrong? > > Which is what I saw first too. But when I talked to Ian over irc <snippet>: > > [00:22] <IanHolsman> hey.. did you see the benchmark.. > [00:22] <IanHolsman> could you parse it > [00:22] <sander> Yes, saw it. > [00:22] <sander> No, could not parse. > [00:22] <IanHolsman> aah > [00:23] <IanHolsman> http://webperf.org/a2/caw/29/Current Total HTTP and TCP Errors vs Load 21-Dec-2001 1215.gif is probably the > best image > [00:24] <sander> Under a higher load we get more errors with v30? > [00:24] <IanHolsman> if you look on v29 errors start happening around 500 users sessions. with v30 they happen at 700 > [00:24] <IanHolsman> no... under a higher load you get less. > [00:24] <sander> Ah > > And this is why I thought this morning: "There must be more people > having trouble parsing these results...". > > > david > > Sander > >
