I see..so you're saying the cache file should be "the highest" perhaps?
If that's the case, then it seems that there is something possibly related
to accessing the cache which is causing you a bottleneck?
Perhaps this is indicitive of some further MPM issues. What MPM did you use
to do this test? Threaded?
--
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 2:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: mod_file_cache performance
>
>
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Gonyou, Austin wrote:
>
> > >
> > > 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
> > > MMapFile 80.90 req/s 458.54 KB/s 1978.32 req/s
> 11283.72 KB/s
> >
> > 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.
>
> I think one of us has missed the other's point (it's entirely possible
> that I've missed yours). I think what you're saying is that it makes
> sense for the KB/s to decrease when the req/s decreases, as
> opposed to the
> inverse effect. Yes, I agree, that makes sense. That's not what I'm
> worried about. The problem I'm seeing is that ALL of the
> numbers across
> the row should be HIGHER for the CacheFile case than for the
> "no cache"
> case. That they're not means there's something wrong with the caching
> system. =-)
>
> --Cliff
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Cliff Woolley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Charlottesville, VA
>
>
