On Die 05.09.2006 16:55, Vishnu Gopal wrote: > >The numbers again are the 10sec --nconns and the final --rate > >1 Mongrel serving a test /test (w/o db access, very simple page): >1600 160 > >4 Mongrels serving a /test: >1400 190 > >1 Mongrel serving a full /index: >200 18 > >2 Mongrels serving a full /index: >190 26
2 Mongrels are slower for the w/o pages, are you sure?! >Right, and so on (didn't bother to test this further) > >The lesson learnt is that CPU loads become a factor very quickly with >mongrels and lots of hits on the server, esp if the CPU is paltry. As i have seen that's also true for java/perl/... $appservers ;-) >I'm not sure what kind of configuration all the rest of the tests I've >found on the net have been run on [aah here is one: >http://blog.kovyrin.net/2006/08/28/ruby-performance-results/ run on a >4x xeon with 4g ram :-)] but imho you still need a fast (much faster) >web server even on a single node to run rails/mongrel as compared to >php. Going the php way with very cheap machines is probably not going >to work. I think the nginx and lighttpd could be fast enought, could you share your setup so that we can look a little bit behind the scene ;-) >If I do buy more (how many?) cheap machines serving 7req/s each, and >then load balance all of em (say with hardware), could I realistically >hope to hit comfy loads like 300 req/s? And will this continue to >scale? 42 maschines, isn't it this too much?! How about to look into the app to get mor req/s?! Regards Alex _______________________________________________ Mongrel-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
