Fayland Lam wrote:
Tomas Doran wrote:
top totally doesn't show how much RAM is shared by copy on write at
all, and so is misleading you here.
do you know how to do a real benchmark? the siege result shows 5.7 is
better under pressure.
I didn't actually do any 'real' benchmarking for this,
Thanks for that. (Toby Corkindale too)
I'll do more research and update you later.
Thanks.
Andrew Rodland wrote:
On Monday 28 September 2009 12:56:36 am Fayland Lam wrote:
I'm wondering if someone here did a benchmark between Catalyst 5.7 and 5.8
Benchmark, as requested. View this message a
On Monday 28 September 2009 09:31:13 pm Fayland Lam wrote:
> Toby Corkindale wrote:
> > Fayland, I was looking at the benchmarks that you linked, and was just
> > wondering which version of Perl you're running against?
> >
> > (CentOS 5 was one of the operating systems that came with the
> > badly-
Toby Corkindale wrote:
(Apologies for top-posting.. have momentarily lost the option to change quoting
styles it seems..)
Fayland, I was looking at the benchmarks that you linked, and was just
wondering which version of Perl you're running against?
(CentOS 5 was one of the operating systems t
Tomas Doran wrote:
Fayland Lam wrote:
from the top, each httpd takes 20M more RAM in 5.8 compared with 5.7
No, that'll be 20Mb of RAM _in total_, as all of those pages should be
shared between your apache processes (given that you're preloading your
application in the parent process).
top
