On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Mike Smith wrote: > > It's stupid to tune everything for performance except for the web > > server -- they should be using Zeus, not Apache. > > The Zeus evaluation license prohibits its use for benchmarks, and the > Zeus folks failed to respond to any of my attempts to communicate.
we actually did get permission to use it just in time, we ran it the night before we left rather than sleep :) I think you'd left by that time? anyway, it shot right up to the same peak apache did, but sustained it with much less effort than apache. zeus is indeed well engineered. this is mostly meaningless for you guys, except as a case where finer grained locking would have been nice. part of the parameters of the 'test' was that we were forced to use four dorky 100mb interfaces rather than a nice single gigabit interface that would have aggregated traffic. we had subsystem locks, but this workload had lots of packets coming in through the nics on the cpus and had lots of processes all also trying to get into tcp. yay massive static http churn creating massive conention on the inet/socket subsystems. NT's stack and threaded server held up under this, as does solaris x86.. just something to keep in mind, I guess, applying the usual common sense to how useful these benchmarks are in comparing systems. :) mike, hope to see you again sometime.. -- zach - - - - - - 007 373 5963 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
