It was an overstatement in my Zeal :-). Clearly not. Up to maybe
10x. That's the best improvement I've ever seen. But...,
realistically with a well tuned apache vs. a well tuned static
accelerator, probably 4x is tops. (Sorry :-) Static accels handle
the thundering herd problem better as well, and can dish out to more
clients simultaneously. However, I think that apache will incorporate
a lot of the stuff used in Static accel's soon..., so the gap will be
small. But this is very OT..., we're dynamic remember! :-)
Thanks,
Shane.
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 12:49:12PM -0700, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [...]
> > These httpd static accelerators do 100 times better than apache does.
100 times is not limited to performance by the way. If you take into
account simultaneous clients the memory overhead is drastically
different. In terms of performance, 4x would be a slightly likely
number. As the number of concurrent clients went up it would favor on
the side of the static accel. With just a single client hitting the
box, I would imagine the difference would be nominal. That's really
were static accelorators pay off..., LOTS of simultaneous clients.
>
> I don't believe that's true.
>
> And it doesn't change Perrin's point (that apache is sufficient for most
> pipes anyway).
>
>
> - ask
>
> --
> ask bjoern hansen - <http://www.netcetera.dk/~ask/>
> more than 70M impressions per day, <http://valueclick.com>
>
