Oh, yeah...threads. No, in neither case did threads ever approach 900. In fact, at the time threads had a hard limit in Linux, so I set it to 512 for my tests, which was plenty for the benchmarks that I did. Admittedly, the polygraph benchmark was running on local machines, so each request could complete in ~3 seconds for misses and under a second for hits. So the number of concurrent connections doesn't have to be very high.
Joe Cooper wrote: > I've benchmarked it on both Linux and FreeBSD. I have very little > knowledge of FreeBSD, however, so it may not have been properly tuned (I > followed Squid and Polygraph tuning instructions, which I think should > be suitable for Oops as well). > > I found them to perform very similarly. Not enough performance > difference to consider significant. > > And as I've said before, Oops is great at low loads client numbers, but > when scaling up to much higher request rates (anything over about 70 on > my test hardware) it falls over. Same hardware sustains 90-110 running > Squid depending on Squid version (2.2STABLE5 being the fastest, with 2.4 > and 2.5 being somewhat close...2.3 is the slowest). > > The hardware is an old 850 model of our Tsunami line...450MHz K6-2, 256 > or 512 MB of RAM (have tested with both along the way) and two 7200 RPM > IDE disks. > > Edward Millington wrote: > >> All of this do sound good. >> >> Joe! When you ran oops, was it on linux? >> >> What was the machine config? >> >> did you see the thread hit 1000? >> >> Thank you very much. -- Joe Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.swelltech.com Web Caching Appliances and Support ===================================================================== If you would like to unsubscribe from this list send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe oops-eng" in message body. Archive is accessible on http://lists.paco.net/oops-eng/
