No. I meant apache 2.0 was giving about 1.5 times better performance :-).
Sorry about the confusion.
-- Pavan
=======================================================
Pavan Balaji, | 774, Dreese Labs,
1584, Worthington St, | 2015, Neil Avenue,
Columbus, OH43201 | Columbus, OH43210
(614) 327 0973 | (614) 292 8458
=======================================================
"Being happy doesn't mean that everything's perfect... It just means that
you have decided to see Beyond the Imperfections" -- Rash
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Sumeet Singh wrote:
> Pavan Balaji wrote:
>
> >We had tried this sometime back, and apache 2.0 was giving about 1.5 times
> >the performance. But I didn't do any fine tuning stuff, so am not sure how
> >reliable these numbers are. Anyways, the proxy forwarding is still giving
> >terrible performance (as compared to running it just as a webserver) --
> >about 2-2.5 times worse.
> >
> >
> >
> Do you mean to say that when run as a proxy, apache 2.0 with worker-mpm
> does worse than apache 1.3 ? That's surprising, because none of the
> docs/articles that I have read have pointed out such a severe shortage
> in performance (p.s. I am not saying that your results were wrong).
>
> -sumeet
>
> > -- Pavan
> >
> > =======================================================
> > Pavan Balaji, | 774, Dreese Labs,
> > 1584, Worthington St, | 2015, Neil Avenue,
> > Columbus, OH43201 | Columbus, OH43210
> > (614) 327 0973 | (614) 292 8458
> > =======================================================
> >
> >"Being happy doesn't mean that everything's perfect... It just means that
> >you have decided to see Beyond the Imperfections" -- Rash
> >
> >On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Sumeet Singh wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Has anybody compared the performance apache 1.3.x running as a proxy
> >>server (using mod_proxy) against apache 2.0 (using worker-mpm) ?
> >>
> >>-sumeet
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
