On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 11:41:08AM +0200, Tom Schwaller wrote:
> Tavis Rudd wrote:
>
> > All of this is true, but the final statement is unproven.
> > There are many factors involved and realistic benchmarks
> > are needed before such a statement can be made.
>
> I did some Apache benchmarks (with ab) with more ore less static pages.
One would have to question using more or less static pages as a test of
an application server, but ok, we're comparing apples to apples.
> Webware was much faster than SkunkWeb, which was a surprise (I expected
> the opposite). From experience I know the behaviour of Webware in the
> fully dynamic case, which is still better than that of SkunkWeb (and
> that of Zope), but I'd like to see benchmarks from other people
> to be shure. My standard test is
>
> ab -n 100 -c 2 http://..
> ab -n 1000 -c 20 http://..
>
> anybody got some numbers to share?
Actually I'd like to see your numbers as well as the templates you
were running as well as hardware (especially # CPU's)/OS setup and how
many WebWare threads vs. SkunkWeb children. SkunkWeb 3 has not yet
gone through the serious beating and profiling that it's predecessors
have, so there is a very distinct possibility we introduced a
bottleneck or two, and having a benchmark is a good place to start
looking. The other question would be: were you going to SkunkWeb
directly or through Apache via mod_skunkweb?
Drew
--
print(lambda(m,d,y):['Sun','Mon','Tues','Wednes','Thurs','Fri','Satur'
][(lambda(m,d,y):(23*m/9+d+4+y/4-y/100+y/400)%7)(m<3and(m,d+y,y-1)or(
m,d+(y-2),y))])(map(int,raw_input('mm/dd/yyyy>').split('/')))+'day'
_______________________________________________
Webware-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
