is this across loopback?
if so then it's useless for performance tuning/measurement. you gotta use
a real network, and a beefy enough client to get any meaningful results.
or is it a single 100baseT segment? if so then this is too little network
to give meaningful results as well. unless you optimise something other
than "r/s" or "bytes/s" -- study the idle CPU for example. idle CPU
becomes a much more useful metric when you aren't maxing out the system.
that said, you might want to use lmbench <ftp://ftp.bitmover.com/lmbench/>
to study what file open times are like under linux. they're pretty damn
small. linux's dcache kicks a lot of ass... and in the end, userland
caching of stuff like this just means you're duplicating efforts. that
means a waste of L2, which will have a non-linear decrease on your
performance.
but i'm just guessing.
-dean
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
