When you are testing Apache, is it configured exactly the same as when you are using it to front Mongrel? i.e. do you have the mod_proxy_balancer module setup and configured, with Mongrel running, etc.? I am doing that. So, it's likely I could get it faster if I didn't have any of that.
On 2/27/07, Kirk Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/27/07, Christopher Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I'm running into is that Mongrel appears only half as fast as Apache > when serving a small static HTML file. If I then add in Apache with > mod_proxy_balancer, going to a single Mongrel, it drops down to nearly about > a third of what pure static Apache will do. This seems bogus to me, and I > suspect I have either some configuration problem, or something. My > understanding from what I've read is that Mongrel should be fairly close to > Apache when serving static content (at least not only 50% as fast). Is that > right as a generalization? That may not be far off at all, and that difference between going directly to Mongrel versus going through Apache with proxying that you report is about what I have seen. > - Just Apache, num-conns=15000, ~1400 req/sec That actually seems really slow. My box is a lot slower than yours (dual 2ghz 32 bit AMD processors on 2gb RAM, older kernel, slower disk), and I get twice that speed through Apache (2.0) to a small static file. About 2800/second. > - Direct to Mongrel on port 5000, num-conns=8000, ~740 req/sec This is close to what I have seen in my direct-to-mongrel tests, though I get speeds that are a little bit higher. In the 800+ req/second range. I don't think anything is wrong with your tests. Kirk Haines _______________________________________________ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
_______________________________________________ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
