Hey
On 12/8/11, Felix Frank <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On 12/07/2011 08:12 PM, Deepak Goel wrote: >> Hey >> >> Looks like you are getting a response time of 300ms. A simple html >> page of about 5k takes about 1ms on a shared network, which keeps on >> increasing as you increase the size of the page. So you are atleast > > I don't follow. What if the server takes 500ms to compile the response? > Then you're looking at 501ms until you get your 5k back. ===================== Yup. Thats True. The assumption is the content is static html page and is very quick as compared to the network speed usually spread over a lan, internet or something. If the server is old and is gonna take 500ms to compile the page, then you can add 500ms. So then the problem would be two fold. One the network and the second the server. In the server if there is a threading limit which is limiting the number of simultaneous processing of response to 200, then the output would still remain 200, only the response time will increase by 500 ms. So you will have to get rid of the threading bottleneck (or what we call as synchronized bottleneck) > >> downloading 60k in every page (transaction). If this is true then you >> are getting the correct throughput (200/sec). > > So you assume that maximum throughput is 18000kb/s? What makes you think > so? It sounds horribly wrong to me. ========================================= I had done some test a long time back and the problem seemed to be the same one. However if given more data about the system and network, a more accurate solution can be provided It can be horribly wrong, but based on the data given in the question it might be horribly right! ================================================================== ========================================= > >> If you want to increase to 1500/sec, you will have to try the following: >> 1. Move to a isloated network or ask your sysadmin to increase the >> network bandwidth >> 2. Caching >> 3. Multiple Servers (Either software or hardware) > > I don't follow your math, but you've got a point. Keeping an eye on the > network load is definitely a good idea. > > Sincerely, > Felix > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Namaskara~Nalama~Guten Tag~Bonjour -- Keigu Deepak +91-9765089593 [email protected] http://www.simtree.net Skype: thumsupdeicool Google talk: deicool Blog: http://loveandfearless.wordpress.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/deicool "Contribute to the world, environment and more : http://www.gridrepublic.org " --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
