On 9/1/08 8:11 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Aug 31, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Bing Swen wrote: > >> >> To my knowledge, the "one thread per connection" network i/o model >> is a >> suboptimal use > > threads vs. events is certainly not, imo, a finalized debate > yet with a known winner or loser. Maybe 5-10 years ago events > had a "clear" advantage but today that is hardly the case... I have documented my vote on this in the past, but the "async is inherently faster" looks good on paper, but does not, IMNSHO, measure up in the real world. It seems that lighttpd, and others, simply come with a much more "realistic" default configuration out of the box. Our latest builds, on some fairly modest hardware, are actually about twice as "fast" as numbers I posted last time async-vs-threads came up. Apache can very easily fill multiple gigE interfaces on modest hardware. We can sustain about 45k requests/sec on our build on a dual dual-core system with a network card that supports Linux NAPI (that made a huge difference). Without much tuning 35k is pretty easy. (Note: this was very small files, bcs it's so easy to fill the network interfaces). Apache is slow is just FUD, plain and simple. We need to work on getting things like x-sendfile into stock distribution and pushing the "use fastcgi for php" type things into the documentation. (Sorry, put this area is one of my pet peeves.) -- Brian Akins Chief Operations Engineer Turner Digital Media Technologies
