I have put a recent test of Apache 2.0.29 up on webperf.
http://webperf.org/a2/v29/random_files/
this test simulates a increasing Transaction Per Second rate over time
for a random URL on a NFS docroot.
The file itself has >10< included files.
The load is made up of
20% 56K modem users,
40% DSL Users,
40% T1 Users.
The thing to note is we have keepalives turned off.
(The pause in the middle is due to the load generator screwing up
not the webserver)
The webserver is a Solaris 8 machine with 2G memory and 8 200MHZ processors
If any of this is unclear I'm put more detail in.
Ian
Greg Ames wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 10:18:18PM -0500, Greg Ames wrote:
>>
>>>as I mentioned in another post, 2.0.29 also seems to have the high load average
>>>problem. The run queue size numbers displayed by vmstat weren't quite as
>>>extreme as what I saw yesterday pm, which may be because there's less traffic in
>>>the evening. But then the load averages displayed by top gradually built up
>>>until they were much higher than what we see with 2_0_28.
>>>
>>Well, I can reproduce it locally just by asking for the manuals
>>with flood:
>>
>>jerenkrantz@walla% uptime
>> 8:05PM up 11:51, 3 users, load averages: 22.64, 9.35, 3.76
>>
>
> COOL!!
>
>
>>Looking further into it now. Of interest in the top output is that
>>a lot of process are "Mutex" wait.
>>
>
> uh-oh. The live server on daedalus doesn't use accept mutexes. The idle
> servers sit in accept() because we don't think FreeBSD has a thundering herd
> problem.
>
> do you see the "Mutex" wait in the STATE column? and is walla FreeBSD
> w/prefork? when this gets really bad on daedalus, top shows "RUN" in the state
> column for most of the httpd's briefly, then after the screen refreshes you see
> more normal waits - select or accept, for example.
>
> Greg
>
>
