Kemp is purpose built, so I'd expect they've spent a lot of time with custom performance tuning. Plus micro-benchmarks never really tell the full story.
For the numbers to mean anything you'd need to provide 1) Is this SSL or non-SSL traffic? 2) How many of these clicks are SSL handshakes - versus sessions that are already established? SSL Handshakes are where the bulk of the CPU load will come from. 3) Are these clicks new TCP sessions or are they on a shared connection(i.e. HTTP Keepalive) Recommendations for increasing your number: 1) Apply this patch: http://goochfriend.org/pound/pound_2.6_SNI_Optimization.patch to prevent some possibly unneeded SNI checks in SSL handshakes 2) Investigate and change your Threads value. The default of 128 may be your limiting factor. Experiment with more or fewer threads to determine the best trade-off of performance and memory. I would bet increasing the Threads value will help in some regard... Let me know how it goes please! Joe > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Pound Mailing List] strange performance > > Hi, > > we are running a pound 2.6f with a patch v2 by Joe Gooch. > When we start to stress our webserver via pound we get ~170000 clicks, > while the cpu of our pound-system /Xeon 3,0 GHz 1Gb RAM stays at about > 40-50% (top). With the same test-setup but with a different SSL- > Loadbalancer (KEMP), we get ~250000 clicks. It seems as if there is a > barrier we can´t brake to get more clicks via the pound. Not the pound > or the webservers seems to operate with a high load. > > Any suggestions are welcome > > Kind Regards > > fatcharly > > -- > Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie > mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de > > -- > To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to > [email protected]. > Please contact [email protected] for questions.
