Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>Also, while I'm not terribly sure how valuable this might be to you,
>I think it might be good to see how prefork compares on this same
>test. After all, it is our default MPM and will be until we can
>prove to people (esp. committers) how much better threading can
>be. -- justin
>
Here are the prefork numbers...
Based on all this data, I think leader/follower is the best candidate
for the next-generation Unix MPM. I'm going to refocus my efforts on
turning leader/follower into production-quality code.
--Brian
httpd listening on one port:
Requests/ Mean request CPU CPU
MPM second time (ms) load utilization
-----------------------------------------------------------
Threadpool 854 55.5 4.8 52%
Leader/follower 957 39.5 6.8 72%
Worker 892 31.4 7.0 70%
Prefork 899 32.9 7.3 76%
httpd listening on two ports:
Requests/ Mean request CPU CPU
MPM second time (ms) load utilization
-----------------------------------------------------------
Threadpool 848 54.5 4.8 53%
Leader/follower 814 58.4 4.5 51%
Worker 881 47.7 5.1 59%
Prefork 760 62.9 3.7 43%
