It may be a "stupid" benchmark. But no one seems to have commented on the CPU
rates. Why was PerlEx 100% and PerlScript 45% on the same machine, same
ActiveState Perl (presumable), same CPU config. And yet took the same amount of
time to complete.
I find that interesting. I suspect that it is a trick with how the OS views CPU
time (eg user time vs system calls vs IO wait) in the two architectures, but it
would be interesting to know why this is. Especially if mod_perl ends up
adopting a similar round robining of Perl interpreters among apache threads
later on down the line (becoming more similar to PerlEx architecture).
Later,
Gunther
Nicolas MONNET wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Valter Mazzola wrote:
> |i've made a stupid unscientific benckmark:
> |
> |the program loops 1000000 and print a series of "a ", PerlEx takes the same
> |time as ASP (same NT machine) , BUT processor goes 100% with PerlEx, 45%
> |with ASP.
> |
> |Can someone benchmark mod_perl under Win32, using the same stupid program ?
>
> I don't mean to be rude, but this is one stupid benchmark! Basically
> useless for that matter. You're not going to demonstrate anything with
> this.
>
> Now a good question is: what would be a good benchmark?
>
> What about doing some real life stuff, like get big results from a
> database, and calculate something over them, and print the (big?) result
> back?
>
> (Now this is not flamebait, I'm really wondering: why run mod_perl apps on
> WinNT? )
