On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 09:55:39AM -0500, Blue Lang wrote:
> Eh, ab isn't really made as anything other than the most coarsely-grained
> of benchmarks. Concurrency testing is useless because it will measure the
> ratio of requests/second/processor, not the scalability of requests from
> single to
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Roger Espel Llima wrote:
> JR Mayberry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Linux does serious injustice to mod_perl. Anyone who uses Linux knows
> > how horrible it is on SMP, I think some tests showed it uses as litle as
> > 25% of the second processor..
>
> A simple benchmark wit
JR Mayberry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Modperl handler benchmark, which was done on a dual P3 500mhz on
> Linux does serious injustice to mod_perl. Anyone who uses Linux knows
> how horrible it is on SMP, I think some tests showed it uses as litle as
> 25% of the second processor..
It's an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 10:37:16AM -0800, Joshua Chamas wrote:
> >
> > Please feel free to run the tests yourself, and if you give
> > me the results, I'll be sure to post them at a later date
> > at http://www.chamas.com/bench/ . You can grab the benchmarks
> > from
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 10:37:16AM -0800, Joshua Chamas wrote:
>
> Please feel free to run the tests yourself, and if you give
> me the results, I'll be sure to post them at a later date
> at http://www.chamas.com/bench/ . You can grab the benchmarks
> from http://www.chamas.com/bench/hello.tar
JR Mayberry wrote:
>
> I strongly dislike the benchmarks on the below URL, its very
> misleading..
>
> The Modperl handler benchmark, which was done on a dual P3 500mhz on
> Linux does serious injustice to mod_perl. Anyone who uses Linux knows
> how horrible it is on SMP, I think some tests show
I strongly dislike the benchmarks on the below URL, its very
misleading..
The Modperl handler benchmark, which was done on a dual P3 500mhz on
Linux does serious injustice to mod_perl. Anyone who uses Linux knows
how horrible it is on SMP, I think some tests showed it uses as litle as
25% of the
Gunther Birznieks wrote:
> But it's a shame that the only way to
> get faster than PHP is to write a raw Mod_perl handler according to the
> benchmarks. All the other mod_perl tools seem slower.
It makes sense though. All the other tools do more setup work on each
request: parsing input, manipul
Hi all,
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Gerald Richter wrote:
> there are so many factors, so they are very difficult to compare.
True. But nevertheless I think it's a very useful bit of work because
the thing that stands out is that all (server) dynamic content comes at
a high cost in processor cycles.
> For the raw benchmarks...
>
> OK, I finally got a little time to download and read some the
hello.tar.gz.
>
> It's good to see TT is fairly fast. But it's a shame that the only way to
> get faster than PHP is to write a raw Mod_perl handler according to the
> benchmarks. All the other mod_perl
Gunther Birznieks wrote:
>
> For the raw benchmarks...
>
> OK, I finally got a little time to download and read some the hello.tar.gz.
>
> It's good to see TT is fairly fast. But it's a shame that the only way to
> get faster than PHP is to write a raw Mod_perl handler according to the
> benchm
For the raw benchmarks...
OK, I finally got a little time to download and read some the hello.tar.gz.
It's good to see TT is fairly fast. But it's a shame that the only way to
get faster than PHP is to write a raw Mod_perl handler according to the
benchmarks. All the other mod_perl tools seem
Hey,
Still very rough, the hello world benchmark suite is available
for download at: http://www.chamas.com/bench/hello.tar.gz
You may run it like:
# to get started, see what tests will run, note you
# may need some CPAN modules installed to get this far
perl ./bench.pl -test
# to run t
13 matches
Mail list logo
