Hello, Documentating myself on proper benchmarking, I ran into the following page: http://gwan.com/en_apachebench_httperf.html
Their conclusion is that their product is the best of all. Well, 'of course' one might say... ;o) What surprised me most that they claim to use less resources AND perform better. That particularly strikes me because usually ot favor one side, you take blows on the other one. To me, the problem of such tests is that they are a mix of realistic/unrealistic behaviors, the first being invoked to justify useful conclusions, the latter to make a specific environment so that features from the Web server (as opposed to other components of the infrastructure) are tested. They are arrogant enough to claim theirs is bigger and paranoid enough to call almost every other benchmark biased or coming from haste/FUD campaigns. That is only OK if they are as pure as the driven snow... I need expert eyes of yours to determine to which end those claims are grounded. Particular points: - Is their nginx configuration <http://gwan.com/source/nginx.conf> suitable for valid benchmark results? - Why is your wrk test tool built in such way in pre-establishes TCP? - Why is nginx pre-allocating resources so its memory footprint is large when connections are pre-established? I thought nginx event-based system was allocating resources on-the-fly, as G-WAN seems to be doing it. (cf. 'The (long) story of Nginx's "wrk"' section) - Why is wrk (in G-WAN's opinion) 'too slow under 10,000 simultaneous connections'? (cf. 'The (long) story of Nginx's "wrk"' section) --- *B. R.*
_______________________________________________ nginx mailing list nginx@nginx.org http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
