On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:06:17 +0800 "Ken Wei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I created a new rails app named 'test' which containing only a controller > and an action . > Here is the controller: > > class MyTestController < ApplicationController > > def index > render_text 'Hello!' > end > > end Yes, *this* is the test case you use. > I keeped the setup as the same as before. Then i ran a single mongrel server > which listening on 3000 by default, and used httperf to hit the action: > > httperf --server 192.168.1.1 --port 3000 --rate 80 --uri /my_test --num-call > 1 --num-conn 10000 The --num-call parameter is useless, and a rate of 80 isn't good either. How did you come up with this rating? Start with --num-conn 1000, and see what the estimated rate is, then give it that rate. After that, slowly move --rate up or down until you find the point where you can't make it any faster without the speed dropping. And, go get http://peepcode.com/products/benchmarking-with-httperf so I don't have to try to explain it over email. > The memory usage of the mongrel server grows from 20M to 144M in 20 seconds, > it's crazy! Well, there's enough people complaining about memory leaks in *MONGREL* when they run *RAILS* that I'll have to investigate it. > And i tryed Lighttpd + FastCGI to test this case, it works well. Then i > think about if i need to roll back to the fastcgi way? is the mongrel the > future of the rails community? FastCGI forces a garbage collection after a certain number of requests, but if your app runs with FastCGI then you should use that. Don't use a solution that doesn't work. -- Zed A. Shaw, MUDCRAP-CE Master Black Belt Sifu http://www.zedshaw.com/ http://www.awprofessional.com/title/0321483502 -- The Mongrel Book http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/ _______________________________________________ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
