> Looking even at your standard deviations, I don't see much of a > difference between these. What's your SD on the req/sec?
Thanks for the heads-up Jason. ab doesn't have a SD on the req/sec AFAIK, tried doing (I think) equivalent benchmarks with httperf, this time from the server, and I got the following results. It seems like FastCGI is marginally faster than Mongrel for my site when both are run with 2 dispatchers. Does this sound like an accurate test, or did I miss something essential in the benchmarking process? Thanks, Ben --------------------------------------------------- FastCGI (1 proc): $ httperf --server=eship.com.br --rate=100 --num-conns=1000 httperf --client=0/1 --server=eship.com.br --port=80 --uri=/ --rate=100 --send-buffer=4096 --recv-buffer=16384 --num-conns=1000 --num-calls=1 Maximum connect burst length: 7 Total: connections 1000 requests 1000 replies 1000 test-duration 16.141 s Connection rate: 62.0 conn/s (16.1 ms/conn, <=257 concurrent connections) Connection time [ms]: min 10.2 avg 1741.3 max 9040.8 median 1614.5 stddev 1737.0 Connection time [ms]: connect 0.0 Connection length [replies/conn]: 1.000 Request rate: 62.0 req/s (16.1 ms/req) Request size [B]: 63.0 Reply rate [replies/s]: min 48.2 avg 65.7 max 75.0 stddev 15.1 (3 samples) Reply time [ms]: response 1741.3 transfer 0.0 Reply size [B]: header 304.0 content 95.0 footer 2.0 (total 401.0) Reply status: 1xx=0 2xx=0 3xx=1000 4xx=0 5xx=0 CPU time [s]: user 1.31 system 13.72 (user 8.1% system 85.0% total 93.1%) Net I/O: 28.0 KB/s (0.2*10^6 bps) Errors: total 0 client-timo 0 socket-timo 0 connrefused 0 connreset 0 Errors: fd-unavail 0 addrunavail 0 ftab-full 0 other 0 --------------------------------------------------- FastCGI (2 procs): $ httperf --server=eship.com.br --rate=100 --num-conns=1000 httperf --client=0/1 --server=eship.com.br --port=80 --uri=/ --rate=100 --send-buffer=4096 --recv-buffer=16384 --num-conns=1000 --num-calls=1 Maximum connect burst length: 8 Total: connections 1000 requests 1000 replies 1000 test-duration 11.993 s Connection rate: 83.4 conn/s (12.0 ms/conn, <=169 concurrent connections) Connection time [ms]: min 10.7 avg 837.5 max 2047.6 median 831.5 stddev 662.5 Connection time [ms]: connect 0.3 Connection length [replies/conn]: 1.000 Request rate: 83.4 req/s (12.0 ms/req) Request size [B]: 63.0 Reply rate [replies/s]: min 82.4 avg 83.8 max 85.2 stddev 2.0 (2 samples) Reply time [ms]: response 837.2 transfer 0.0 Reply size [B]: header 304.0 content 95.0 footer 2.0 (total 401.0) Reply status: 1xx=0 2xx=0 3xx=1000 4xx=0 5xx=0 CPU time [s]: user 1.23 system 8.75 (user 10.3% system 73.0% total 83.2%) Net I/O: 37.6 KB/s (0.3*10^6 bps) Errors: total 0 client-timo 0 socket-timo 0 connrefused 0 connreset 0 Errors: fd-unavail 0 addrunavail 0 ftab-full 0 other 0 --------------------------------------------------- Mongrel: $ httperf --server=eship.com.br --rate=100 --num-conns=1000 httperf --client=0/1 --server=eship.com.br --port=80 --uri=/ --rate=100 --send-buffer=4096 --recv-buffer=16384 --num-conns=1000 --num-calls=1 Maximum connect burst length: 4 Total: connections 1000 requests 1000 replies 1000 test-duration 13.000 s Connection rate: 76.9 conn/s (13.0 ms/conn, <=212 concurrent connections) Connection time [ms]: min 19.5 avg 1117.1 max 4115.2 median 1036.5 stddev 936.0 Connection time [ms]: connect 0.0 Connection length [replies/conn]: 1.000 Request rate: 76.9 req/s (13.0 ms/req) Request size [B]: 63.0 Reply rate [replies/s]: min 74.4 avg 78.9 max 83.4 stddev 6.4 (2 samples) Reply time [ms]: response 1117.1 transfer 0.0 Reply size [B]: header 304.0 content 95.0 footer 2.0 (total 401.0) Reply status: 1xx=0 2xx=0 3xx=1000 4xx=0 5xx=0 CPU time [s]: user 1.02 system 11.22 (user 7.8% system 86.3% total 94.2%) Net I/O: 34.7 KB/s (0.3*10^6 bps) Errors: total 0 client-timo 0 socket-timo 0 connrefused 0 connreset 0 Errors: fd-unavail 0 addrunavail 0 ftab-full 0 other 0 _______________________________________________ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
