>From: Gunther Birznieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: Nicolas MONNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: Valter Mazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: NT/IIS/PerlEx vs ASP : stupid benckmark >Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 22:03:12 -0400 > >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, NB.it's M$-ASP not PerlScript valter 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? ) > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
