What I mean is, when I send requests directly to the webserver, I get
about 3.5K transactions per second (per server). But when I add the proxy
to forward all requests to the webserver, I get about 1.7K transactions
per second. I expect some drop in performance, but this seems a little too
much. If you have any insights about something I'm probably missing, I'll
be glad to try it out.
Thanks,
-- 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:
>
> >No. I meant apache 2.0 was giving about 1.5 times better performance :-).
> >Sorry about the confusion.
> >
> >
> >
> Thanks.
>
> Btw, can you expand on the following ?
>
> "Anyways, the proxy forwarding is still giving terrible performance
> (as compared to running it just as a webserver) -- about 2-2.5 times
> worse."
>
>
> -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:
> >
> >
> >
> >>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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
