One other thing to add here too...that static content is served much faster
than non-static, whatever the case. In terms of bandwidth usage, the more
connections, the higher the bandwidth requirement at all levels, from disk -
to network.
--
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gonyou, Austin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 2:14 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: mod_file_cache performance
>
>
> Seen here, this is a common theme when benchmarking. The less
> the connection
> numbers are, there is a direct proportion to the kb/second
> that will be seen
> as through put. This is a good thing, because if it went up
> as you scaled
> down, you'd have the inverse affect. This is not preferred of course.
>
> --
> Austin Gonyou
> Systems Architect, CCNA
> Coremetrics, Inc.
> Phone: 512-796-9023
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 2:06 PM
> > To: Bill Stoddard
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: mod_file_cache performance
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey...
> >
> > I've been doing some benchmarks on mod_file_cache, and
> I'm getting
> > numbers that confuse the hell out of me. Here's what I've
> > seen (this is
> > on a RHL 7.1 box with kernel 2.4.3 running on an AMD Athlon
> > 1.2GHz with
> > 1GB RAM, using /manual/index.html.en as the test file):
> >
> >
> > Request for static file:
> >
> > No keepalives Keepalives
> > -------------------------- ----------------------------
> > no cache 118.98 req/s 676.92 KB/s 2280.06 req/s 13053.79 KB/s
> > CacheFile 90.19 req/s 511.21 KB/s 2181.21 req/s
> > 12440.95 KB/s (WTF?!)
> > MMapFile 80.90 req/s 458.54 KB/s 1978.32 req/s
> > 11283.72 KB/s (WTF?!)
> >
> >
> > Request for server-parsed file:
> >
> > No keepalives Keepalives
> > -------------------------- ----------------------------
> > no cache 31.81 req/s 183.68 KB/s 453.38 req/s 2647.38 KB/s
> > CacheFile 87.20 req/s 501.66 KB/s 682.49 req/s 3965.77 KB/s
> > MMapFile 104.17 req/s 599.30 KB/s 674.94 req/s 3925.77 KB/s
> >
> >
> >
> > Clearly there's something screwy going on (as seen in the
> static file
> > case). I verified with gdb that sendfile IS being used in
> the static
> > tests with both the cached and non-cached file handles (I
> > also examined
> > those apr_file_t's and they looked right). Maybe a 5KB
> file should be
> > below the sendfile() threshold on Linux? That doesn't
> > explain why it goes
> > SLOWER using sendfile on a cached file handle than it does
> > using sendfile
> > on a file handle it has to open up on every request. Maybe it's
> > something with the apr_sendfile() implementation on Linux?
> > I've looked
> > at it and no problems jump right out at me, though. I'm stumped.
> >
> > Anyway, I don't consider this a showstopper for the T&R,
> > because it serves
> > the requests correctly (one way or another) without
> segfaulting... but
> > clearly I need to figure out what's going on at some point soon.
> >
> > (On the other hand, these results tell me that you get a nifty keen
> > speedup by using mod_file_cache to accelerate server-parsed
> > requests under
> > 2.0 (as I'd hoped), which is something you couldn't really do
> > in 1.3. :-)
> >
> >
> > --Cliff
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > Cliff Woolley
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Charlottesville, VA
> >
>
